e.g., 'You better give us tax breaks, or we won't give you jobs, hahahahaha'. This is why I'm a socialist in favor of strong central gov'ts. No matter how bad the gov't gets, there's always a tiny, tiny chance they'll turn out OK. Corporations are intrinsically jerks.
Let's suppose you then set up a strong central government with socialist policies. And then some other country that you do not control decides to offer a marginally better deal for businesses that locate in their jurisdiction. One would hope that you don't claim the right to force that other country to adopt your sort of policy or to force the company not to do business with them. The worst you can do is forbid them from importing their game they made elsewhere into your country, giving you the triple whammy of pissing of your citizens, denying you sales tax revenue and then having to deal with the porous nature of the internet. See, e.g. the US online gambling ban (and obvious corollary to anything that can be distributed digitally).
Socialism or central control doesn't solve your problem here at all unless you are really talking about worldwide socialism and one-world-government, about which the less said the better.
Alright. Let's suppose we accept your ground rules.
Now to be fair, we also need to diqualify former attorneys for an environmental advocacy group from hearing any environmental-law cases. After all by your standard, a EAG attorney can be inferred to have just as much of a bias with regards to an environmental case as an RIAA attorney with regards to a file-sharing case. And likewise for union lawyers, corporate lawyers, white-collar-defense lawyers, prosecutors, defense counsel....
In fact, there's no limiting principle here at all -- any work on behalf of a former client would be enough to throw a judge off a particular case merely because they share some aspect of law.
[ Oh, and you have no idea how Federal law works. There is no citizen-initiated recall of Federal judges, nor any power to 'investigate' judges (as that would be patently abusive). Only the House/Senate can bring impeachment articles. ]
Next up, Republicans will disqualify any former medical malpractice plaintiff's attorneys from hearing a civil suit for a hospital. After all, they're likely biased against the hospital.
Then Democats will disqualify all former corporate counsel from hearing civil suits involving corporations. After all, they're likely biased towards the corporation.
Then Republicans will disqualify former union lawyers from hearing suits against employers. Biased towards workers.
Then Democrats will disqualify any former prosecutor from hearing criminal cases. Biased against defendants.
Then Republicans will disqualify environmental lawyers from hearing environmental cases. Obviously biased.
Pretty soon no judge that has ever worked on anything will be qualified to hear any case at all and we'll have to hire judges straight out of law school.
That's a false duality. There is no reason that regulators can't listen to the industries they regulate as long as the industries aren't buying them trips, cars, vacations, etc...
Is there any evidence of an improper relationship between her and the RIAA after she terminated her employment with them? I RedTFA and I didn't see any mention of that. If you want to make an inference of corruption, "she used to work for them" is pretty weak.
I wonder how many on/. complain when criminal defense or civil plaintiff's attorneys get appointed to the bench? Is this an even-handed criticism of "well, you represented X in the past, therefore you can't be a judge", which would apply equally to nearly everyone (and disqualify everyone from being a judge) or is it only people we don't like that get this treatment?
You have no idea and you never will unless you can find 1) evidence on a computer and 2) evidence that the suspect was using said computer at the time.
No one is convicting based on IP addresses. But "the Comcast account at 215 Pine St was used to dl kiddie porn" is probable cause to get a warrant for the computers at that address. Probable cause is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt --- it's possible that it was a guy in a van in a laptop -- but there's still very good reason to believe that evidence will be found. See, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Gates. So the idea is that IP evidence is a good 'lead' to justify further searches for evidence to meet the criteria you were talking about even as it is insufficient by itself.
The downside of this is the effort you need to go to every two years, to transfer all your files and reinstall all your applications. Maybe not a big deal for you (or for me: it takes 10 minutes of setup and 2 hours of waiting), but for a novice computer user it's quite daunting.
Actually I consider it an upside (although yes, daunting) because it forces the user to make a distinction between the data and the medium in which it is stored. For this precise reason, it's does double duty as a good time to prod users into thinking about their backup solution -- as backing up and migrating to a new machine share a common theme of enumerating what constitutes important data.
For users aspiring to be more advanced, I tell them not to copy anything directly but to sync it all with whatever their preferred backup solution is. That challenge can lead to improvements in the process (hmm, I'm not backing up my Firefox bookmarks and they are actually hard to rebuild).
I get this all the time from my family/relatives. Here's the rundown:
Get your preferences in order: Screen size, discrete graphics (must/may/must-not), battery life (min) and then just browse Fatwallet's laptop section or slickdeals until something that matches comes up. These days, any intel i3/i5 processor and 3-4GB of RAM will crush light-office-type tasks. I don't worry too much about the brand so long as I've heard of them before. You aren't investing enough to make spending tons of hours on research pay off.
Next up, I want to share a contrary attitude that many of us in the non-Apple community feel. I hasten to mention that I'm not saying your attitude is wrong, but I want to share a different point of view. You said you don't want something that's obsolete in 2 years, but I kind of wonder why? Spending $600 every 2 years gets you a lot further than spending $1200 every 4 years. If you had bought a $1200 laptop 4 years ago, you'd have a first-gen Core2Duo (Merom), 1GB of RAM, 802.11g whereas $600 was a first-gen (Yonah) Centrino, 1GB of RAM, 802.11g. Meanwhile, 2 years ago $600 got you a Arrandale i3, 3GB of RAM and a far better Intel GMA (one that can accelerate h264@1080p) with 802.11n and +50% battery life. So you got 2 years of a slightly faster laptop in exchange for 2 years with a much inferior one all at the same price.
Apple gets you into the habit of spending a whole heck of a lot of money for a really nice machine, I'm trying to suggest that in the Windows world, buying less laptop more often nets you more bang for your buck over time. What's more, the commodification of the laptop means you have so much less at stake regarding breakage. I love not caring about cases, biking with laptop in a backpack, traveling around with it, not investing in a laptop-lock-cable, not caring if my nephew spills apple-juice all over it (the keyboard tray got most of it, the laptop lived on). There are people for whom spending more makes sense: graphic designers need a color-accurate IPS LCD, road-warriors need something super portable, gamers need the latest mobile video cards. For the rest of everyone, get a cheapo laptop, beat the crap out of it and then replace it.
Finally, for those that suggest I'm creating a bunch of unnecessary waste (leaving aside that I'm getting tangible utility out of shorter cycle here), every one of my old laptops has been DBANed and sent over to FreeGeek (where I volunteer) to further their service. It's not waste if you can find a use for it!
THAT is a shootout I would like to see. Even entry-level cards are "good enough" for casual gaming, and mid-range cards are great for even newer games at high resolution.
First off, the two giants fight for the middle levels by cutting prices on the last-gen technology so there's nothing to report other than "it's 2011, you can get cutting-edge 2010 performance for 1/3rd the price". But everyone already knew that, and there's nothing new to report about the 2010-tech at a new price point.
Second, entry levels cards don't make the kind of margins you need to sustain an 18-month release cycle while keeping the fabs busy.I'm quite glad that the hardware world obsesses over a few extra FPS because that pushes up the point where the last-gen cards get marked down to sane prices. So whenever I see a story like this, instead of thinking "Gee, why do they sell a $500 video card", I think the proper response is "Excellent, my $100 now goes a lot further".
Finally, I have set to see any unstable graphics drivers in the past few years, either in Windows or Linux despite running an ungainly assortment of hardware (university group) with various low-end video cards (lots of 3D rendering, mostly using VMD, which is OpenGL). No issues installing the drivers in either Ubuntu or Fedora either, which helpfully provide one-click installation for the right blobs.
How is this even allowed? I pay for 2GB of data per month. Whether the traffic goes to my iPhone or to my iPhone and then to my iPad isn't really any of AT&T's concern. There is no extra overhead, no extra work on their side. All the routing is done on the phone itself. This sounds like a double charge on a single service. Am I missing something?
You are missing the plain terms of the contract that forbid this. You don't like the contract terms, I'm sure but that doesn't change the fact that the consumer did not enter an agreement whereby they can consume their 2GB of data per month on any device they want.
Whether or not there is extra overhead or work on their side is not relevant to those terms. Individuals contract all the time with conditions that are not relating to extra overhead or work. My house lease forbids overnight guests for staying more than 3 days at a time, I agreed to that irrespective of whether overnight guests cause the landlord to do more work (pretty sure not) because overall the terms of the lease were acceptable to me. I can't turn around and say "well I pay to lease the house I can have guests over as long as I want, lease be damned" just because it seems to me that the landlord ought not to care. It's not my position to tell him what he cares about or not, we drew up an agreement precisely to spell that out.
IOW, you are making arguments that are totally irrelevant to AT&Ts position. By the plain black-on-white terms of their agreement, you purchased 2GB of data to be used on the mobile device. That's what it says, that's what was agreed to, that's the end of it.
[ I do think that automatically upgrading the plan to a tethering one is a particularly poor remedy. If I were AT&T, I would cut off the data and give the subscriber a call to explain the terms of their data agreement and that they are in breach of those terms. This is a matter of good customer service, that's all. ]
Yet here you are telling me what I ought to believe.
I'm telling you what you ought to believe if you want to be consistent with your own expectations. You certainly can persist in saying that you are entitled to judge for others what is best for them concurrently with saying that others are not entitled to judge what is best for you. I, for one, will not take such a transparently non-universal position.
This is really no more than Kant's categorical imperative -- do not presume to substitute your preferences for others' for the same reason (and by the same logic) that you do not want others to substitute their preferences for yours.
And consider it from the view of the Anti-Facebook opponent, with somebody mindlessly doing something that is unwise at best, dangerous at worse. Did you do that?
Dangerous and unwise in your judgment. Do you allow for the fact that perhaps someone else, seeing the same facts, could come to a different conclusion, or do we all have to abide by your estimation of what is dangerous and what is not?
No, you did not, because you're stuck in the mental trap of chasing a false idealization of liberty and freedom, of somehow it being good for folks to be allowed to stick their hands in fires to learn from it instead of saying "Hey that's hot, stop!" .
If an adult wants to stick his hand in the fire, that's his business. If he seems inclined to listen to my advice, I will share my opinion with him. What I'm not going to do is start interjecting myself into what other human beings want to do with their own hands and their own fires against their will.
Otherwise, when I turn around and want to ride my motorcycle or eat some Cheetos, I will have no grounds to complain when the safety sissies or the nutrition naysayers start berating me for my choices that they think are dangerous or harmful.
Quid pro quo -- I'll leave you to make mistakes (that you think are not mistakes) and you'll leave me to make mistakes (that I think are not mistakes). Note the beautiful symmetry of the situation -- it's exactly the same if you swap the identities of the participants. If you want to propose a contrary arrangement that obeys that symmetry -- that operates the same on you with relation to everyone else as it operates on everyone else with relation to you -- be my guest, but such a symmetry is a fundamental requirement.
As someone who knows bugger all about Linux, can anyone confirm if that patch will have any kind of impact on Android Devices or is it the kind of thing only a desktop user will see a difference with?
The Android kernel and the Linux kernel are pretty much irreparably forked, after the Linux people (perhaps rightly, I don't know) refused to accept the Android patches back into the trunk over the wakelock controversy. Unfortunately, the rift there never healed and there was never any real resolution.
In order for this to apply to Android, Google would have to port the changes over.
I don't for myself, but you know what? Sometimes you don't want to let a con man take advantage of other people. Yes, it's terrible wanting to impose on somebody else's freedom and liberty, and I'll feel bad about it for about -3 seconds, but hey, it's for the best really.
You can't help those that don't want to be helped. You ought to believe that people are entitled to make mistakes, if only because you want the right to take actions that others believe are mistaken.
Consider the situation if the roles were reversed. You are a consumer that enjoys Facebook and doesn't care much about the privacy implications of having your vacation pictures and some banal details online. Some guy tries to explain to you that its evil and simply will not take "I like Facebook leave me alone" for an answer. What are you supposed to think, other than "this guy ought to mind his own business"?
It's disturbingly common how many intelligent but partisan people get into the rut of believing that everyone who has thought about something must have come to the same conclusion. I feel like I hear it from everywhere these days -- the FSF crowed, the console fanboys, the Tea Party -- everyone seems convinced that no honest person could possibly disagree with them. Again, these are generally intelligent people, so much so that you would imagine they could grok the idea that thoughtful and honest people could legitimately disagree about the purity/utility of FSF, the merit of consoles or PCs or the values and policies in our country.
At least I imagine it sometimes, and then I read these posts and am shaken back into hyper-partisan reality.
That when building a tool for the masses you go by their preferences, not your own valid-but-uncommon ones. And the plain fact of the matter is that most people do not mind the Facebook privacy model as evidenced by their enthusiastic uptake of the system and their lackadaisical attitude towards all these "ZOMG Facebook is the devil" news stories.
I get it, the/. and 4chan crowds have a different set of preferences than the average consumer. This has been beaten to death so many times that there's scarcely anything more to add there except to remind you guys that not everyone must have the same preferences as you. In fact, many prefer the convenience of Facebook over the loss of privacy. We keep hearing the refrain of "if they knew the truth they'd change their minds" and yet they continue to not change their minds not matter how much bleating goes on, probably because they know and don't change their minds. I know this is an odd thing to the partisan/zealot, but really some people understand your position, heard the arguments and just aren't convinced. Try not to take it too personally.
Heck, I've got a Facebook page that shares all sorts of banality. And truth is I wouldn't at all be upset if everything on there was printed out and handed to every person I've ever known (I would feel sorry if they decided to actually peruse through that banality, to be honest). Is is "authentic" as Moot wants it to be? No and I bloody don't want that in the first instance. The fact that he thinks I give a fig about his preferences for the content and tone of my communications is really astounding, roughly equivalent to me thinking that he should consult me on whether he should have jam or cheese on his toast (cheese, with a tiny bit of Marmite).
TL;DR version: Not everyone is like you. This is a good thing, the world would be boring if everyone was the same. Quit projecting your own values onto others, at least in such cases where they have taken clear and unequivocal steps to demonstrate that they do not share those values.
The absolutely worst type of boss is one who's always demanding I do something in the most ineffective way because that's the consensus that was reached by everyone in the meeting, a meeting where no one understood what it's all about but a smooth talker convinced everyone that it must be done that way.
Translation: I couldn't convince anyone that my proposal was better but I refuse to acknowledge the possibility it was not, in fact better. Instead, I'm going to blame others for not understanding the brilliance of my suggestion.
For all that's wrong with Britain's libel system, this actually sounds like it'd pass muster in America as well, and a good thing for it, too.
With regards to a private citizen, it might pass muster. With regards to a candidate for electoral office and other public officials, however, the 1A requires a much higher standard. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan for more details.
Broadly speaking, the standard for talking about a public figure is not merely malice but actual malice which means either actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. In practice, that's a nearly impossible burden for a libel plaintiff.
The logic that a different standard applies to public officials and candidates for office is also pretty obvious -- they have voluntarily decided to submit themselves for public judgment and they ought to understand that they are open to criticism in that regard. The KS Supreme Court wrote it best
It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great. The public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.
What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.
The GPLv2 does not require that devices honor modifications, only that the user is free to download the source and the binary and modify and redistribute them. That was the entire lesson of TiVo and the motivation for GPLv3.
I would have thought that a reasonable way to solve this would be for a GPLv2 application distributed in the App Store to have a link to a web page where you can download the source and the binary. There would be a sort of philosophical question, given that you can't access the copy that's on your phone but I don't think the GPLv2 requires such pedantic exactitude. So long as you can get a copy of the source used to build that binary, I think the license is met.
And, of course, if you don't want software that you write to be used in such a fashion, use the GPLv3. I don't find anything wrong with that at all -- the author ought to decide based on what he or she feels is right.
I've always been a bit frustrated that the community has been a bit shaky about distinguishing HTML5 as a video platform and HTML5 as a platform for building interactive applications. In the former context, HTML5 seems like a sure winner, especially given that flash for video was really a hackish (but necessary) expedient and not a great design choice. In the latter case, however, I have yet to see good examples of the sort of deep web applications in HTML5 that you can build with flash, to the extent that it makes me skeptical that HTML5 really is a replacement for flash for that purpose. Certainly no one has demoed anything nearly as sophisticated as Farmville (leaving aside the, ahem, merits of that particular insipid application) but I'm willing to imagine that's a matter of time.
IOW, I think there's a bit of confusion about where HTML5 is going to replace flash and where flash may remain (perhaps unfortunately) as the best solution.
You would think this is one of those places where the technology would be constantly updated, but not so.
What? Given the mission-critical nature of the technology (and hence scrupulous validation) and the relatively slow changing requirements, I would think the technology would almost never change except for a brief period of time during implementation where they iron out the kinks.
Unless the old system is actually failing (and given the superlative safety delivered by the aviation industry in the past few decades, I doubt it) there is everything to lose and little to gain from getting on the upgrade treadmill. Unless you are a contractor providing new tech and troubleshooting, in which case it's a goldmine.
Save the latest technology for cell phones and tablets, I'd prefer my aviation run on something with a few-decade track record.
I'm talking about a minority of individuals passing laws willy-nilly without consulting the people who are supposed to obey them. The basic function of the government should be to protect the border, and maintain the status quo, not to continually invent laws without the imprimatur of the people.
Last I checked, the guy with the most vote wins (with one exception per 100 years). So the imprimatur of the people seems to be functioning perfectly well, except for the point that you don't like what they approved.
The basic function of the government should be to protect the border, and maintain the status quo, not to continually invent laws without the imprimatur of the people.
And if The People were to vote for representatives that overwhelmingly approve particular laws, what gives you the right to veto their judgment on this topic (not that you have to accept it as correct, only as their judgment)?
Last I checked, the topic suitable for government functions is itself a matter commended to The People and their representatives (or, in case of a drastic change requiring amendment, to some more stringent procedure that still ultimately rests with The People).
Hardly. There are several ways to avoid compulsion. In this particular case (to get back on topic) I pulled my children from public schools and educate them at home. No truancy.
YMMV, but home schoolers in many States still have to attend the same number of hours of instruction that the public schools. See, e.g. http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/New_York.pdf requiring "the substantial equivalent of 900 hours yearly" plus standardized tests. Obviously laws vary by State.
PS. Good on you (seriously) for educating your children though.
True enough, but there are even more requirements that a minority of capitalists and "representatives" impose upon the citizenry without even consulting them. That's what I'm talking about. Was the Patriot Act passed by a common vote?
It was passed by an overwhelming majority. Granted, my Rep and 1 of my Senators both voted against the Patriot Act. Nevertheless, I accept that a majority of Representatives and Senators did vote in favor and I respect the contrary judgment of the rest of the populace (they are wrong, but they have the right to be wrong).
My question to you is this: if you are unwilling to accept such contrary judgment when things go against you, what right could you claim to bind others when things go your way? I mean, can't everyone just exempt themselves from any law by this claim, or does it only apply to laws that you don't like?
I'll be happy to obey the laws, as long as I have a hand in saying what the laws are (through voting or whatever). Otherwise, I don't feel compelled to obey them. (See seatbelt laws, drug prohibition, infinite copyright extension, etc.)
First, I'm not aware that any of these laws were passed without my Rep/Sen being qualified to vote. I don't approve of drug prohibition but I also don't claim that I have any right to unilaterally veto laws that I don't like any more than my boss has the right not to pay me minimum wage because he disagrees. If I want others to abide laws that they don't like, it would be hypocritical for me not to abide laws that I don't like.
Second, the nice thing about law is that even if you don't feel internally compelled, you will be externally compelled. It would be rather foolish to pass a law saying "don't rape people unless you don't feel compelled to obey this law" or "pay minimum wage unless you don't want to".
Authority. Whose authority? In the United States, we the people are the ultimate authority. The government works for us and does our bidding. A lot of people (police, judges, and citizenry) seem to forget that.
And clearly that means that kids can cut schools and no one can tell them otherwise! After all, they are the ultimate authority! While we are at it, what's with the government telling me to pay taxes or drive 55mph anyway? Don't they know that citizens and drivers are the ultimate authority, not the government?
Sorry Virginia, but there are all sorts of requirements that The People, exercising their authority collectively, impose on themselves; e.g. compulsory education, driving the speed limit and paying taxes. Popular sovereignty is not the same as anarchism and compliance with democratically-ratified laws (within some bounds, naturally) is not the same as tyranny.
If they do in fact fix those "out of bounds" issues and/or its corporate web site then they should pay something to the discoverer. Only if they don't do anything about them should they not pay anything.
If I ask a contractor to assess my foundation and he tells me that my water heater is busted, do I owe him money if I later replace the heater? There was an explicit deal regarding which flaws qualify for bounties and which do not. If someone submits one contrary to an honest reading of those terms, they are owed nothing.
if they prove deliberate destruction of evidence, doesn't that constitute admission of guilt? or some other loss-by-default?
No, but it does allow the prosecutor to give the jury instructions that they may make a adverse inference[1] as to the contents of the destroyed relevant evidence from the fact that the defendant knowingly (sometimes even negligently) destroyed it. Essentially, they are telling the jury that they can infer that the evidence would weaken the defendant's case from the fact that he willfully destroyed it.[2] The jury is not required to make such an inference but it may -- as contrasted from the fact that prosecutors are forbidden from trying to make adverse inferences from a refusal to testify based on 5A grounds, such jury instructions would be illegal and the whole conviction overturned.
This is a very onerous instruction and so is reserved for cases in which it was shown that the destruction was knowing or negligent but it's necessary in order for the discovery system to work. In the absence of a adverse inference rule, litigants would have a very strong incentive to preemptively destroy any incriminating evidence as soon as they became aware of an investigation or a lawsuit. In cases against corporations in which internal emails/documents play a pivotal role in proving that the behavior was part of a pattern/policy of the company (and not merely a rogue employee) this would be fatal to the plaintiff/State. The same logic applies in cases against the State[3] where they refuse to disclose evidence that might be favorable to the defendant.
All you have to do is issue new orders saying 'Under no circumstances should you attempt to stop these people from escaping.', and at some point their detainee's lawyers will tell someone, at which point there will be a mass escape.
The restriction would prohibit Obama from using any government resources to carry out that order. Can't radio it, can't print it on a government-owned printer, can't instruct any government-paid subordinate to deliver it.
The statutory language is quite clear. They have not prohibited the closure of Guantanamo. They have not prohibited Obama from moving detainees from Guantanamo. They have prohibited him from using budgeted funds to move detainees to the US.
There are any number of ways to deal with this. First, you could just unlock the doors, shut off the lights, and walk away. This option is free! Alternatively, he could find other ways to fund the closure of Guantanamo. Set up a collection plate and I'll donate.
Doesn't matter, no Executive personnel can do anything to further that end. They cannot shut off the lights or unlock the doors. They cannot take a US government airplane off the island. They cannot hire a contractor to move the good back to some storage facility on the mainland.
The prohibition of funds to a particular end makes it unlawful for any employee of the US government to lift a single single finger towards that end.
What's more, if you want to argue stilted legalism, then don't be shocked when some future President with whose policies you disagree uses the same sort of logic to implement policies contrary to the law. Bush was a master at this, it wasn't OK when he did it and it wouldn't be OK for Obama to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
e.g., 'You better give us tax breaks, or we won't give you jobs, hahahahaha'. This is why I'm a socialist in favor of strong central gov'ts. No matter how bad the gov't gets, there's always a tiny, tiny chance they'll turn out OK. Corporations are intrinsically jerks.
Let's suppose you then set up a strong central government with socialist policies. And then some other country that you do not control decides to offer a marginally better deal for businesses that locate in their jurisdiction. One would hope that you don't claim the right to force that other country to adopt your sort of policy or to force the company not to do business with them. The worst you can do is forbid them from importing their game they made elsewhere into your country, giving you the triple whammy of pissing of your citizens, denying you sales tax revenue and then having to deal with the porous nature of the internet. See, e.g. the US online gambling ban (and obvious corollary to anything that can be distributed digitally).
Socialism or central control doesn't solve your problem here at all unless you are really talking about worldwide socialism and one-world-government, about which the less said the better.
Alright. Let's suppose we accept your ground rules.
Now to be fair, we also need to diqualify former attorneys for an environmental advocacy group from hearing any environmental-law cases. After all by your standard, a EAG attorney can be inferred to have just as much of a bias with regards to an environmental case as an RIAA attorney with regards to a file-sharing case. And likewise for union lawyers, corporate lawyers, white-collar-defense lawyers, prosecutors, defense counsel ....
In fact, there's no limiting principle here at all -- any work on behalf of a former client would be enough to throw a judge off a particular case merely because they share some aspect of law.
[ Oh, and you have no idea how Federal law works. There is no citizen-initiated recall of Federal judges, nor any power to 'investigate' judges (as that would be patently abusive). Only the House/Senate can bring impeachment articles. ]
Next up, Republicans will disqualify any former medical malpractice plaintiff's attorneys from hearing a civil suit for a hospital. After all, they're likely biased against the hospital.
Then Democats will disqualify all former corporate counsel from hearing civil suits involving corporations. After all, they're likely biased towards the corporation.
Then Republicans will disqualify former union lawyers from hearing suits against employers. Biased towards workers.
Then Democrats will disqualify any former prosecutor from hearing criminal cases. Biased against defendants.
Then Republicans will disqualify environmental lawyers from hearing environmental cases. Obviously biased.
Pretty soon no judge that has ever worked on anything will be qualified to hear any case at all and we'll have to hire judges straight out of law school.
That's a false duality. There is no reason that regulators can't listen to the industries they regulate as long as the industries aren't buying them trips, cars, vacations, etc...
Is there any evidence of an improper relationship between her and the RIAA after she terminated her employment with them? I RedTFA and I didn't see any mention of that. If you want to make an inference of corruption, "she used to work for them" is pretty weak.
I wonder how many on /. complain when criminal defense or civil plaintiff's attorneys get appointed to the bench? Is this an even-handed criticism of "well, you represented X in the past, therefore you can't be a judge", which would apply equally to nearly everyone (and disqualify everyone from being a judge) or is it only people we don't like that get this treatment?
You have no idea and you never will unless you can find 1) evidence on a computer and 2) evidence that the suspect was using said computer at the time.
No one is convicting based on IP addresses. But "the Comcast account at 215 Pine St was used to dl kiddie porn" is probable cause to get a warrant for the computers at that address. Probable cause is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt --- it's possible that it was a guy in a van in a laptop -- but there's still very good reason to believe that evidence will be found. See, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Gates. So the idea is that IP evidence is a good 'lead' to justify further searches for evidence to meet the criteria you were talking about even as it is insufficient by itself.
The downside of this is the effort you need to go to every two years, to transfer all your files and reinstall all your applications. Maybe not a big deal for you (or for me: it takes 10 minutes of setup and 2 hours of waiting), but for a novice computer user it's quite daunting.
Actually I consider it an upside (although yes, daunting) because it forces the user to make a distinction between the data and the medium in which it is stored. For this precise reason, it's does double duty as a good time to prod users into thinking about their backup solution -- as backing up and migrating to a new machine share a common theme of enumerating what constitutes important data.
For users aspiring to be more advanced, I tell them not to copy anything directly but to sync it all with whatever their preferred backup solution is. That challenge can lead to improvements in the process (hmm, I'm not backing up my Firefox bookmarks and they are actually hard to rebuild).
I get this all the time from my family/relatives. Here's the rundown:
Get your preferences in order: Screen size, discrete graphics (must/may/must-not), battery life (min) and then just browse Fatwallet's laptop section or slickdeals until something that matches comes up. These days, any intel i3/i5 processor and 3-4GB of RAM will crush light-office-type tasks. I don't worry too much about the brand so long as I've heard of them before. You aren't investing enough to make spending tons of hours on research pay off.
Next up, I want to share a contrary attitude that many of us in the non-Apple community feel. I hasten to mention that I'm not saying your attitude is wrong, but I want to share a different point of view. You said you don't want something that's obsolete in 2 years, but I kind of wonder why? Spending $600 every 2 years gets you a lot further than spending $1200 every 4 years. If you had bought a $1200 laptop 4 years ago, you'd have a first-gen Core2Duo (Merom), 1GB of RAM, 802.11g whereas $600 was a first-gen (Yonah) Centrino, 1GB of RAM, 802.11g. Meanwhile, 2 years ago $600 got you a Arrandale i3, 3GB of RAM and a far better Intel GMA (one that can accelerate h264@1080p) with 802.11n and +50% battery life. So you got 2 years of a slightly faster laptop in exchange for 2 years with a much inferior one all at the same price.
Apple gets you into the habit of spending a whole heck of a lot of money for a really nice machine, I'm trying to suggest that in the Windows world, buying less laptop more often nets you more bang for your buck over time. What's more, the commodification of the laptop means you have so much less at stake regarding breakage. I love not caring about cases, biking with laptop in a backpack, traveling around with it, not investing in a laptop-lock-cable, not caring if my nephew spills apple-juice all over it (the keyboard tray got most of it, the laptop lived on). There are people for whom spending more makes sense: graphic designers need a color-accurate IPS LCD, road-warriors need something super portable, gamers need the latest mobile video cards. For the rest of everyone, get a cheapo laptop, beat the crap out of it and then replace it.
Finally, for those that suggest I'm creating a bunch of unnecessary waste (leaving aside that I'm getting tangible utility out of shorter cycle here), every one of my old laptops has been DBANed and sent over to FreeGeek (where I volunteer) to further their service. It's not waste if you can find a use for it!
THAT is a shootout I would like to see. Even entry-level cards are "good enough" for casual gaming, and mid-range cards are great for even newer games at high resolution.
First off, the two giants fight for the middle levels by cutting prices on the last-gen technology so there's nothing to report other than "it's 2011, you can get cutting-edge 2010 performance for 1/3rd the price". But everyone already knew that, and there's nothing new to report about the 2010-tech at a new price point.
Second, entry levels cards don't make the kind of margins you need to sustain an 18-month release cycle while keeping the fabs busy.I'm quite glad that the hardware world obsesses over a few extra FPS because that pushes up the point where the last-gen cards get marked down to sane prices. So whenever I see a story like this, instead of thinking "Gee, why do they sell a $500 video card", I think the proper response is "Excellent, my $100 now goes a lot further".
Finally, I have set to see any unstable graphics drivers in the past few years, either in Windows or Linux despite running an ungainly assortment of hardware (university group) with various low-end video cards (lots of 3D rendering, mostly using VMD, which is OpenGL). No issues installing the drivers in either Ubuntu or Fedora either, which helpfully provide one-click installation for the right blobs.
How is this even allowed? I pay for 2GB of data per month. Whether the traffic goes to my iPhone or to my iPhone and then to my iPad isn't really any of AT&T's concern. There is no extra overhead, no extra work on their side. All the routing is done on the phone itself. This sounds like a double charge on a single service. Am I missing something?
You are missing the plain terms of the contract that forbid this. You don't like the contract terms, I'm sure but that doesn't change the fact that the consumer did not enter an agreement whereby they can consume their 2GB of data per month on any device they want.
Whether or not there is extra overhead or work on their side is not relevant to those terms. Individuals contract all the time with conditions that are not relating to extra overhead or work. My house lease forbids overnight guests for staying more than 3 days at a time, I agreed to that irrespective of whether overnight guests cause the landlord to do more work (pretty sure not) because overall the terms of the lease were acceptable to me. I can't turn around and say "well I pay to lease the house I can have guests over as long as I want, lease be damned" just because it seems to me that the landlord ought not to care. It's not my position to tell him what he cares about or not, we drew up an agreement precisely to spell that out.
IOW, you are making arguments that are totally irrelevant to AT&Ts position. By the plain black-on-white terms of their agreement, you purchased 2GB of data to be used on the mobile device. That's what it says, that's what was agreed to, that's the end of it.
[ I do think that automatically upgrading the plan to a tethering one is a particularly poor remedy. If I were AT&T, I would cut off the data and give the subscriber a call to explain the terms of their data agreement and that they are in breach of those terms. This is a matter of good customer service, that's all. ]
Yet here you are telling me what I ought to believe.
I'm telling you what you ought to believe if you want to be consistent with your own expectations. You certainly can persist in saying that you are entitled to judge for others what is best for them concurrently with saying that others are not entitled to judge what is best for you. I, for one, will not take such a transparently non-universal position.
This is really no more than Kant's categorical imperative -- do not presume to substitute your preferences for others' for the same reason (and by the same logic) that you do not want others to substitute their preferences for yours.
And consider it from the view of the Anti-Facebook opponent, with somebody mindlessly doing something that is unwise at best, dangerous at worse. Did you do that?
Dangerous and unwise in your judgment. Do you allow for the fact that perhaps someone else, seeing the same facts, could come to a different conclusion, or do we all have to abide by your estimation of what is dangerous and what is not?
No, you did not, because you're stuck in the mental trap of chasing a false idealization of liberty and freedom, of somehow it being good for folks to be allowed to stick their hands in fires to learn from it instead of saying "Hey that's hot, stop!" .
If an adult wants to stick his hand in the fire, that's his business. If he seems inclined to listen to my advice, I will share my opinion with him. What I'm not going to do is start interjecting myself into what other human beings want to do with their own hands and their own fires against their will.
Otherwise, when I turn around and want to ride my motorcycle or eat some Cheetos, I will have no grounds to complain when the safety sissies or the nutrition naysayers start berating me for my choices that they think are dangerous or harmful.
Quid pro quo -- I'll leave you to make mistakes (that you think are not mistakes) and you'll leave me to make mistakes (that I think are not mistakes). Note the beautiful symmetry of the situation -- it's exactly the same if you swap the identities of the participants. If you want to propose a contrary arrangement that obeys that symmetry -- that operates the same on you with relation to everyone else as it operates on everyone else with relation to you -- be my guest, but such a symmetry is a fundamental requirement.
As someone who knows bugger all about Linux, can anyone confirm if that patch will have any kind of impact on Android Devices or is it the kind of thing only a desktop user will see a difference with?
The Android kernel and the Linux kernel are pretty much irreparably forked, after the Linux people (perhaps rightly, I don't know) refused to accept the Android patches back into the trunk over the wakelock controversy. Unfortunately, the rift there never healed and there was never any real resolution.
In order for this to apply to Android, Google would have to port the changes over.
I don't for myself, but you know what? Sometimes you don't want to let a con man take advantage of other people. Yes, it's terrible wanting to impose on somebody else's freedom and liberty, and I'll feel bad about it for about -3 seconds, but hey, it's for the best really.
You can't help those that don't want to be helped. You ought to believe that people are entitled to make mistakes, if only because you want the right to take actions that others believe are mistaken.
Consider the situation if the roles were reversed. You are a consumer that enjoys Facebook and doesn't care much about the privacy implications of having your vacation pictures and some banal details online. Some guy tries to explain to you that its evil and simply will not take "I like Facebook leave me alone" for an answer. What are you supposed to think, other than "this guy ought to mind his own business"?
It's disturbingly common how many intelligent but partisan people get into the rut of believing that everyone who has thought about something must have come to the same conclusion. I feel like I hear it from everywhere these days -- the FSF crowed, the console fanboys, the Tea Party -- everyone seems convinced that no honest person could possibly disagree with them. Again, these are generally intelligent people, so much so that you would imagine they could grok the idea that thoughtful and honest people could legitimately disagree about the purity/utility of FSF, the merit of consoles or PCs or the values and policies in our country.
At least I imagine it sometimes, and then I read these posts and am shaken back into hyper-partisan reality.
That when building a tool for the masses you go by their preferences, not your own valid-but-uncommon ones. And the plain fact of the matter is that most people do not mind the Facebook privacy model as evidenced by their enthusiastic uptake of the system and their lackadaisical attitude towards all these "ZOMG Facebook is the devil" news stories.
I get it, the /. and 4chan crowds have a different set of preferences than the average consumer. This has been beaten to death so many times that there's scarcely anything more to add there except to remind you guys that not everyone must have the same preferences as you. In fact, many prefer the convenience of Facebook over the loss of privacy. We keep hearing the refrain of "if they knew the truth they'd change their minds" and yet they continue to not change their minds not matter how much bleating goes on, probably because they know and don't change their minds. I know this is an odd thing to the partisan/zealot, but really some people understand your position, heard the arguments and just aren't convinced. Try not to take it too personally.
Heck, I've got a Facebook page that shares all sorts of banality. And truth is I wouldn't at all be upset if everything on there was printed out and handed to every person I've ever known (I would feel sorry if they decided to actually peruse through that banality, to be honest). Is is "authentic" as Moot wants it to be? No and I bloody don't want that in the first instance. The fact that he thinks I give a fig about his preferences for the content and tone of my communications is really astounding, roughly equivalent to me thinking that he should consult me on whether he should have jam or cheese on his toast (cheese, with a tiny bit of Marmite).
TL;DR version: Not everyone is like you. This is a good thing, the world would be boring if everyone was the same. Quit projecting your own values onto others, at least in such cases where they have taken clear and unequivocal steps to demonstrate that they do not share those values.
The absolutely worst type of boss is one who's always demanding I do something in the most ineffective way because that's the consensus that was reached by everyone in the meeting, a meeting where no one understood what it's all about but a smooth talker convinced everyone that it must be done that way.
Translation: I couldn't convince anyone that my proposal was better but I refuse to acknowledge the possibility it was not, in fact better. Instead, I'm going to blame others for not understanding the brilliance of my suggestion.
For all that's wrong with Britain's libel system, this actually sounds like it'd pass muster in America as well, and a good thing for it, too.
With regards to a private citizen, it might pass muster. With regards to a candidate for electoral office and other public officials, however, the 1A requires a much higher standard. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan for more details.
Broadly speaking, the standard for talking about a public figure is not merely malice but actual malice which means either actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. In practice, that's a nearly impossible burden for a libel plaintiff.
The logic that a different standard applies to public officials and candidates for office is also pretty obvious -- they have voluntarily decided to submit themselves for public judgment and they ought to understand that they are open to criticism in that regard. The KS Supreme Court wrote it best
It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great. The public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.
What's in need of a fix are the fact that phones are locked down to prevent the user from modifying and installing any application they want, without crypto signing and the manufacturer's approval.
The GPLv2 does not require that devices honor modifications, only that the user is free to download the source and the binary and modify and redistribute them. That was the entire lesson of TiVo and the motivation for GPLv3.
I would have thought that a reasonable way to solve this would be for a GPLv2 application distributed in the App Store to have a link to a web page where you can download the source and the binary. There would be a sort of philosophical question, given that you can't access the copy that's on your phone but I don't think the GPLv2 requires such pedantic exactitude. So long as you can get a copy of the source used to build that binary, I think the license is met.
And, of course, if you don't want software that you write to be used in such a fashion, use the GPLv3. I don't find anything wrong with that at all -- the author ought to decide based on what he or she feels is right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
I've always been a bit frustrated that the community has been a bit shaky about distinguishing HTML5 as a video platform and HTML5 as a platform for building interactive applications. In the former context, HTML5 seems like a sure winner, especially given that flash for video was really a hackish (but necessary) expedient and not a great design choice. In the latter case, however, I have yet to see good examples of the sort of deep web applications in HTML5 that you can build with flash, to the extent that it makes me skeptical that HTML5 really is a replacement for flash for that purpose. Certainly no one has demoed anything nearly as sophisticated as Farmville (leaving aside the, ahem, merits of that particular insipid application) but I'm willing to imagine that's a matter of time.
IOW, I think there's a bit of confusion about where HTML5 is going to replace flash and where flash may remain (perhaps unfortunately) as the best solution.
You would think this is one of those places where the technology would be constantly updated, but not so.
What? Given the mission-critical nature of the technology (and hence scrupulous validation) and the relatively slow changing requirements, I would think the technology would almost never change except for a brief period of time during implementation where they iron out the kinks.
Unless the old system is actually failing (and given the superlative safety delivered by the aviation industry in the past few decades, I doubt it) there is everything to lose and little to gain from getting on the upgrade treadmill. Unless you are a contractor providing new tech and troubleshooting, in which case it's a goldmine.
Save the latest technology for cell phones and tablets, I'd prefer my aviation run on something with a few-decade track record.
I'm talking about a minority of individuals passing laws willy-nilly without consulting the people who are supposed to obey them. The basic function of the government should be to protect the border, and maintain the status quo, not to continually invent laws without the imprimatur of the people.
Last I checked, the guy with the most vote wins (with one exception per 100 years). So the imprimatur of the people seems to be functioning perfectly well, except for the point that you don't like what they approved.
The basic function of the government should be to protect the border, and maintain the status quo, not to continually invent laws without the imprimatur of the people.
And if The People were to vote for representatives that overwhelmingly approve particular laws, what gives you the right to veto their judgment on this topic (not that you have to accept it as correct, only as their judgment)?
Last I checked, the topic suitable for government functions is itself a matter commended to The People and their representatives (or, in case of a drastic change requiring amendment, to some more stringent procedure that still ultimately rests with The People).
Hardly. There are several ways to avoid compulsion. In this particular case (to get back on topic) I pulled my children from public schools and educate them at home. No truancy.
YMMV, but home schoolers in many States still have to attend the same number of hours of instruction that the public schools. See, e.g. http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/New_York.pdf requiring "the substantial equivalent of 900 hours yearly" plus standardized tests. Obviously laws vary by State.
PS. Good on you (seriously) for educating your children though.
True enough, but there are even more requirements that a minority of capitalists and "representatives" impose upon the citizenry without even consulting them. That's what I'm talking about. Was the Patriot Act passed by a common vote?
It was passed by an overwhelming majority. Granted, my Rep and 1 of my Senators both voted against the Patriot Act. Nevertheless, I accept that a majority of Representatives and Senators did vote in favor and I respect the contrary judgment of the rest of the populace (they are wrong, but they have the right to be wrong).
My question to you is this: if you are unwilling to accept such contrary judgment when things go against you, what right could you claim to bind others when things go your way? I mean, can't everyone just exempt themselves from any law by this claim, or does it only apply to laws that you don't like?
I'll be happy to obey the laws, as long as I have a hand in saying what the laws are (through voting or whatever). Otherwise, I don't feel compelled to obey them. (See seatbelt laws, drug prohibition, infinite copyright extension, etc.)
First, I'm not aware that any of these laws were passed without my Rep/Sen being qualified to vote. I don't approve of drug prohibition but I also don't claim that I have any right to unilaterally veto laws that I don't like any more than my boss has the right not to pay me minimum wage because he disagrees. If I want others to abide laws that they don't like, it would be hypocritical for me not to abide laws that I don't like.
Second, the nice thing about law is that even if you don't feel internally compelled, you will be externally compelled. It would be rather foolish to pass a law saying "don't rape people unless you don't feel compelled to obey this law" or "pay minimum wage unless you don't want to".
Authority. Whose authority? In the United States, we the people are the ultimate authority. The government works for us and does our bidding. A lot of people (police, judges, and citizenry) seem to forget that.
And clearly that means that kids can cut schools and no one can tell them otherwise! After all, they are the ultimate authority! While we are at it, what's with the government telling me to pay taxes or drive 55mph anyway? Don't they know that citizens and drivers are the ultimate authority, not the government?
Sorry Virginia, but there are all sorts of requirements that The People, exercising their authority collectively, impose on themselves; e.g. compulsory education, driving the speed limit and paying taxes. Popular sovereignty is not the same as anarchism and compliance with democratically-ratified laws (within some bounds, naturally) is not the same as tyranny.
If they do in fact fix those "out of bounds" issues and/or its corporate web site then they should pay something to the discoverer. Only if they don't do anything about them should they not pay anything.
If I ask a contractor to assess my foundation and he tells me that my water heater is busted, do I owe him money if I later replace the heater? There was an explicit deal regarding which flaws qualify for bounties and which do not. If someone submits one contrary to an honest reading of those terms, they are owed nothing.
if they prove deliberate destruction of evidence, doesn't that constitute admission of guilt? or some other loss-by-default?
No, but it does allow the prosecutor to give the jury instructions that they may make a adverse inference[1] as to the contents of the destroyed relevant evidence from the fact that the defendant knowingly (sometimes even negligently) destroyed it. Essentially, they are telling the jury that they can infer that the evidence would weaken the defendant's case from the fact that he willfully destroyed it.[2] The jury is not required to make such an inference but it may -- as contrasted from the fact that prosecutors are forbidden from trying to make adverse inferences from a refusal to testify based on 5A grounds, such jury instructions would be illegal and the whole conviction overturned.
This is a very onerous instruction and so is reserved for cases in which it was shown that the destruction was knowing or negligent but it's necessary in order for the discovery system to work. In the absence of a adverse inference rule, litigants would have a very strong incentive to preemptively destroy any incriminating evidence as soon as they became aware of an investigation or a lawsuit. In cases against corporations in which internal emails/documents play a pivotal role in proving that the behavior was part of a pattern/policy of the company (and not merely a rogue employee) this would be fatal to the plaintiff/State. The same logic applies in cases against the State[3] where they refuse to disclose evidence that might be favorable to the defendant.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference
[2] http://vegaslitigator.com/blog/?cat=50 (discussing the Nevada statute, not the Federal one, but many parallels and the same basic concepts exist).
[3] http://legalholds.typepad.com/legalholds/2009/04/negligent-destruction-of-evidence-is-sufficient-to-support-an-adverse-inference-instruction-although.html An interesting case in which police destruction of evidence helps to get defendants off the hook because they allege that the destroyed evidence would undermine the State's case. IOW, the adverse-inference doctrine cuts both for and against the State. The defendants did eventually convince the court that the radio communications were relevant.
All you have to do is issue new orders saying 'Under no circumstances should you attempt to stop these people from escaping.', and at some point their detainee's lawyers will tell someone, at which point there will be a mass escape.
The restriction would prohibit Obama from using any government resources to carry out that order. Can't radio it, can't print it on a government-owned printer, can't instruct any government-paid subordinate to deliver it.
The statutory language is quite clear. They have not prohibited the closure of Guantanamo. They have not prohibited Obama from moving detainees from Guantanamo. They have prohibited him from using budgeted funds to move detainees to the US.
There are any number of ways to deal with this. First, you could just unlock the doors, shut off the lights, and walk away. This option is free! Alternatively, he could find other ways to fund the closure of Guantanamo. Set up a collection plate and I'll donate.
Doesn't matter, no Executive personnel can do anything to further that end. They cannot shut off the lights or unlock the doors. They cannot take a US government airplane off the island. They cannot hire a contractor to move the good back to some storage facility on the mainland.
The prohibition of funds to a particular end makes it unlawful for any employee of the US government to lift a single single finger towards that end.
What's more, if you want to argue stilted legalism, then don't be shocked when some future President with whose policies you disagree uses the same sort of logic to implement policies contrary to the law. Bush was a master at this, it wasn't OK when he did it and it wouldn't be OK for Obama to do it.