Except that the gov't could confiscate the photos out of your gmail box without a warrant.... so the parallel only seems to apply when it involves some poor schmuck embarrassing wealthy beautiful people.
Chicago is located next to Indiana, which has some of the most fucking stupid and lax gun laws in the country. So, yeah, we end up with more guns than say -- New York -- which is surrounded by slightly less bat-shit crazy states.
Exactly. Our tax codes are screwed up. But you cannot blame the corporation (particularly the publicly traded corporation) for fulfilling its DUTY to its stockholders to protect that money. The who "its called capitalism" line is a little off the mark -- capitalism is just the system of pooling financing we use to run our economy - distributed ownership of the means of production - but ancillary to that is the fiduciary duty the parties given control of that pooled capital owe to the owners of the capital. Shorter: it's other people's money. You can't apply your own standard -- you must protect their money. b
Yeah, because when the big guy says "do it or I'll fuck you up" the right thing to do is look around to see if anyone else is going to stand up first. M$oft is a business leader -- it's okay for them to try to lead. If they can punch a hole through the walled garden, even a small one, it'll help those that follow.
They're read by the staff of the people voting on them, who summarize the effect of the law for their congress-critter. Every day corporate officers make decisions on million dollar purchases without reading the text of every page of the purchase contract!! OUTRAGE, how could it happen? Because they have lawyers to do that and not enough time to do the grunt work for themselves. This is why people have employees.
My assumption: It's one of those "if you know what you're talking about this is BIG new" stories I think. Means a lot to people who are deeply invested in the material, everyone else just stands around and says "so what does that mean?" Of course, a presentation aimed at an audience that is supposed to/know/ what they're talking about already assumes you know what it means.
Or the INTERNETS!! How are you posting here? Net babies are real?
And durrr, yes, the backbone system that allows you to hate the government on/. is heavily subsidized, as are most long-term development projects "undertaken" by corporations.
Now -- what will be interesting is to see how long it takes for third party applications to come along that actually bring some useful innovation to the Win8 environment. One of the interesting lessons we can pull out of the MMO-gaming community is that when it becomes easy and useful to modify your UI with addons and mods that are actively encouraged by the developer -- people innovate for you. WoW released with an interface that was okay for its age -- it has since adopted one innovation after another first put forward by addon developers. In doing so, they both improved the user experience and saved themselves time and development resources. It's a good model.
If that starts happening on Win8, I will be interested.
Google is already embracing this concept for Android - perhaps not openly enough - by encouraging phone unlocking and mods like cyanogen. They've taken some steps toward allowing the user to toggle on/off manufacturer UI customizations -- if they can get to the point where you can download and install a new interface through the Play store, we're in business. That's a feature-fight I'd like to see Google, Microsoft and Apple get into.
I'm not sure who the president of the lower court is of which you speak, but the ruling does stand in the 7th Circuit.
For that matter, its not like we just take caselaw at face value even if it was a SCOTUS ruling -- you just argue around it. "Case X, which is horrible for my client, is innapposite because there the Plaintiff was a nun. No nuns here your honor."
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases that seek certification to appeal. It could mean they agree with the ruling, or that they don't see any need to weigh in because there's no dispute between the rulings and no obvious error of law. Sometimes it means they want to see the ruling in action before accepting a later appeal. Often it means that there's something about the underlying fact pattern which has rendered the issue moot (e.g. if the criminal charges have been dropped - if a criminal action - or there is no claim for damages - if a civil suit. If there is no further purpose to the ruling other than to satisfy the curiosity of the parties about the meaning of the law, then the case is probably moot and the Supreme Court will reject the appeal).
That's why we say that the Court's refusal to hear an appeal does not have precidential effect -- we don't know the underlying reasoning behind the Court's decisions and shouldn't assume they agree with the ruling below just because they refused to hear the case. That's not a clear inference.
Correction: This is a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. In Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin you can probably now secretly record police officers - but might still get arrest for it and have to fight a protracted Court battle. In the rest of the Country there's this 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that was left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. your lawyer can now cite to if you get arrested for secretly recording police officers -- the judge in your federal Habeas Corpus action might be persuaded by that authority or might reject it.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the gov't could confiscate the photos out of your gmail box without a warrant. ... so the parallel only seems to apply when it involves some poor schmuck embarrassing wealthy beautiful people.
Seconded.
Chicago is located next to Indiana, which has some of the most fucking stupid and lax gun laws in the country. So, yeah, we end up with more guns than say -- New York -- which is surrounded by slightly less bat-shit crazy states.
Disclaimer
The above comment is bollox.
Truer words have rarely been sig lined.
Only eight? I think we're in the 9 figure range, no?
Exactly. Our tax codes are screwed up. But you cannot blame the corporation (particularly the publicly traded corporation) for fulfilling its DUTY to its stockholders to protect that money. The who "its called capitalism" line is a little off the mark -- capitalism is just the system of pooling financing we use to run our economy - distributed ownership of the means of production - but ancillary to that is the fiduciary duty the parties given control of that pooled capital owe to the owners of the capital. Shorter: it's other people's money. You can't apply your own standard -- you must protect their money. b
Yeah, because when the big guy says "do it or I'll fuck you up" the right thing to do is look around to see if anyone else is going to stand up first. M$oft is a business leader -- it's okay for them to try to lead. If they can punch a hole through the walled garden, even a small one, it'll help those that follow.
Now you can sleep soundly without worry.
Not unless you've killed all the clowns and grounded the black helicopters he can't!!!
They're read by the staff of the people voting on them, who summarize the effect of the law for their congress-critter. Every day corporate officers make decisions on million dollar purchases without reading the text of every page of the purchase contract!! OUTRAGE, how could it happen? Because they have lawyers to do that and not enough time to do the grunt work for themselves. This is why people have employees.
My assumption: It's one of those "if you know what you're talking about this is BIG new" stories I think. Means a lot to people who are deeply invested in the material, everyone else just stands around and says "so what does that mean?" Of course, a presentation aimed at an audience that is supposed to /know/ what they're talking about already assumes you know what it means.
Say it with me now: "I, [state your name] do hereby swear that I will install NoScript or an equivalent tool on my PC before browsing porn."
Or the INTERNETS!! How are you posting here? Net babies are real?
/. is heavily subsidized, as are most long-term development projects "undertaken" by corporations.
And durrr, yes, the backbone system that allows you to hate the government on
That is exactly what WoW does -- except that most wow developers don't expect to make money off addons.
Now -- what will be interesting is to see how long it takes for third party applications to come along that actually bring some useful innovation to the Win8 environment. One of the interesting lessons we can pull out of the MMO-gaming community is that when it becomes easy and useful to modify your UI with addons and mods that are actively encouraged by the developer -- people innovate for you. WoW released with an interface that was okay for its age -- it has since adopted one innovation after another first put forward by addon developers. In doing so, they both improved the user experience and saved themselves time and development resources. It's a good model.
If that starts happening on Win8, I will be interested.
Google is already embracing this concept for Android - perhaps not openly enough - by encouraging phone unlocking and mods like cyanogen. They've taken some steps toward allowing the user to toggle on/off manufacturer UI customizations -- if they can get to the point where you can download and install a new interface through the Play store, we're in business. That's a feature-fight I'd like to see Google, Microsoft and Apple get into.
I'm not sure who the president of the lower court is of which you speak, but the ruling does stand in the 7th Circuit.
For that matter, its not like we just take caselaw at face value even if it was a SCOTUS ruling -- you just argue around it. "Case X, which is horrible for my client, is innapposite because there the Plaintiff was a nun. No nuns here your honor."
One large bullet should do. Unless you move, then I might need to add some more.
Is that you?
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases that seek certification to appeal. It could mean they agree with the ruling, or that they don't see any need to weigh in because there's no dispute between the rulings and no obvious error of law. Sometimes it means they want to see the ruling in action before accepting a later appeal. Often it means that there's something about the underlying fact pattern which has rendered the issue moot (e.g. if the criminal charges have been dropped - if a criminal action - or there is no claim for damages - if a civil suit. If there is no further purpose to the ruling other than to satisfy the curiosity of the parties about the meaning of the law, then the case is probably moot and the Supreme Court will reject the appeal).
That's why we say that the Court's refusal to hear an appeal does not have precidential effect -- we don't know the underlying reasoning behind the Court's decisions and shouldn't assume they agree with the ruling below just because they refused to hear the case. That's not a clear inference.
Correction: This is a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. In Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin you can probably now secretly record police officers - but might still get arrest for it and have to fight a protracted Court battle. In the rest of the Country there's this 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that was left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. your lawyer can now cite to if you get arrested for secretly recording police officers -- the judge in your federal Habeas Corpus action might be persuaded by that authority or might reject it.
Actually, I have it right here. You can't have it though.
Apparently, it's real.
They're protected by Federal Law. Can't publish information about persons under the age of 13 on the internet. At lease not in the states.
Microsoft didn't get rich until AFTER it cornered the market. This is a song Apple has sung before.
"ally" refers to treaty and agreement status, not backstabbing likelihood.
Unlikely -- since destruction of evidence through negligence is evidence, in and of itself.