I'm going to to assume that English isn't your first language, because that's not a sensible reading of what you originally said.
A man can be ruined by a lawsuit. Both in the sense that a plaintiff can take everything he owns and in the sense that he can be cheated out of everything and unable to recover it in court.
this parses as:
A man can be ruined by a lawsuit in the sense that a plaintiff can take everything he owns. A man can be ruined by a lawsuit in the sense that he can be cheated out of everything and unable to recover it in court.
The first instance suggest that a plaintiff can ruin a man through a lawsuit. The second instance suggest that a plaintiff can cheat a man through a lawsuit, i.e. ruin a man with a lawsuit that has no merit.
Your reply also makes little sense with regards to your initial argument.
It's common enough for crooks to cheat people, knowing they won't be able to take the matter to court.
Surely the problem then would be the lack of a lawsuit? I.e. a crook can cheat a man out of something knowing that the man is too poor to litigate.
As to how this all ties together with this story, Ceglia clearly has had access to justice. He had access to one of the best law firms in the USA and they've cut and run. Whilst there may be issues more generally with access to legal aid in the USA, this isn't an instance of that.
Basically this guy is trying to sue Zuckerberg. He's had two legal teams quit. The judge doesn't think he, as the plaintiff, deserves any more time to prepare his case: he either has a case or he doesn't.
He's not defending a case, he's not being "prosecuted". He's litigating against Facebook and Zuckerberg.
Yea, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm wondering how much of a compulsive liar this guy must be if he honestly thinks he can forge an email trail. I guess it's worth a shot for a few hundred million dollars though.
Having your legal team resign is a bad sign. Despite most peoples view of lawyers, they are bound to act ethically and if they have reason to believe you're engaging in a fraud they won't represent you.
I don't remember not being able to read. From my earliest memories, my parents were reading to me and I used to read books like Spot the Dog. That gave me a massive headstart going into primary school, as a lot of other kids either hadn't been taught to read by their parents or simply weren't as interested in it.
I do think it's fair to say that intelligence requires hard work. I'm good at the things I do because I've immersed myself in them for most of my life. Practice can even boost IQ test scores, so I think it's fair to say that intelligence can be improved through effort.
I also think the same thing can be true for beauty. Whether or not someone is considered beautiful is a factor of their clothes, body, etc. To a large degree you can change these things with thought and hard work (diet, exercise, developing your fashion sense and so on).
Some people are just ugly and others are just stupid and in the same way some people are just beautiful and others are geniuses. Most people, however, can come fairly close through lots of hard work.
This is beyond silly. The reason Chip & Pin happened in Europe is because payment card operators in Europe got together and decided to do it. They told retailers they didn't have to use it if they didn't want to, but they would be more liable for fraudulent transactions if they didn't.
Given that the increased liability would cost more than the chip & pin terminals, everyone moved over.
Definitely, I think it's more down to practice than to innate gender differences as I know plenty of guys with a terrible sense of direction. I remember I always used to run off in shops, get myself "lost" and find my way back. My mum used to get stressed at me but after a while, she figured out I'd always find my way back and I promised to just never leave whatever shop we were in.
I can do this, although for me I think it's more to do with having an idea of the orientation of the building as I enter and remembering the changes as I've moved around internally.
It's worth pointing out that even though Objectivists and Crypto Anarchists start out from very different moral perspectives, they tend to end up in similar places.
Power won't go away because it's a natural product of human relations. Our economy is a product of social and productive relationships in our society and having a p2p forex system won't fundamentally change anything.
It is nice to have an alternative to things like PayPal for international money transfer. However,given the computing power that will eventually be required to run the bitcoin network and the requirement to convert bitcoins into local currency so one can pay ones taxes, etc, then it's looking more like you've just done the banks a massive favour by inventing a p2p forex system that enables them to cut costs for themselves.
Once the banks are in on this system I'm sure they'll quickly dominate it. They already operate as lawful, licensed cartels so it seems inevitable that using bitcoin, with its fixed supply, as an intermediary token for forex whilst still charging regular punters extortionate rates for daring to convert the things into real money would be top of their agenda.
Of course, if your concious of the fact that the established banks and their regulators are your mortal enemies then you stand a better chance of getting some sort of victory out of them. Regulation is required to stop national governments banning bitcoin under the pretext that it can be used for laundering, but you should still be very wary of the banking sector.
Re:This is seriously a world first?!!??
on
USB Foot Controls
·
· Score: 1
What's unique about this one is that they successfully spammed the/. submission queue.
The way your criminal justice system works is that the state has to be ready to bring a case the moment you get indicted. The defendant can drag the process out for as long as they like, however.
Everyone in jail has to have a trial date but by and large, those dates are formalities. If you're in jail awaiting trial for murder it's in your best interests to delay for years just so that when you finally go to trial, your attorney can bamboozle any witnesses and introduce reasonable doubt.
OK. That's actually pretty good news, but the treaty as negotiated is still imbalanced as I've commented above.
Still, I guess I learned that now our prosecutors can pull people out of your country too! Our news didn't report that, you guys seeing sense and honouring your negotiated obligations doesn't sell papers you see.
In any case, the treaty we have with the USA isn't the worst of our extradition arrangements. In the European Union we have these things called European Arrest Warrants which mean national police forces can pull anyone out of any country. One guy was extradited to Poland for refusing to pay for his pudding in a cafe!
Actually, subject was dropped in '82. It's still around in the form of British subjects without citizenship or citizen of Eire who applied to become subjects in '48.
Right, but that doesn't redress the imbalance around the fact that the treaty allows for the USA to remove people from the UK for things actions that occur in the UK but are illegal under US law.
To highlight how crazy this is, there's a case of a somone involved in a bribery scandal being extradited even though the alleged crimes occurred entirely between the UK and Nigeria, just because he worked for a firm owned by Haliburton!
Of course it's right that such crimes should be investigated, but things like that are illegal in the UK too. If our criminal justice system doesn't see fit to prosecute, why pull them out to the USA to do it?
Having said that, our police and prosecutors are clearly and obviously corrupt at the highest levels (evidenced by the fact that our Tory government employed a former newspaper editor from News International who has been implicated in a phone hacking scandal, and his former boss even accidentally admitted to parliament that her paper regularly bribes police officers for information) so maybe you're doing us a favour. This is about the principal though!
Back when Tony Blair was in power he signed an extradition treaty with the US which means that if a DA files charges against someone, they can be extradited from the UK. Our Parliament ratified the treaty without inserting a reciprocal clause in the legislation making it dependant on your congress honouring the treaty.
Obviously your congress decided that having US citizens extradited just because a prosecutor in the UK fancied it them was mental, so they didn't ratify that clause. That leaves us with the current imbalance where your criminal justice system can essentially pull anyone out of the UK for any reason.
Central banks print money and lend it to certain banks with interest. In this manner the central banking system functions like a cartel. That money is is then spent as a capital investment in order to generate a return. The actual new value comes about from labour, as all value is generated by people doing things in order to make goods and services for people.
In the UK, debit cards aren't covered by the consumer credit act. Under the CCA your card provider is liable for transactions over a certain amount (I think £50) which basically means if you don't like a product, you can give it back and tell your card provider you're not paying them.
If I use PayPal charged to my debit card (as I don't use a CC. I really should get one just to build my credit rating, but I never get around to it) it would mean I can use PayPal to get money back!
The OS X situation was completely different as the Mac clones were violating the terms of OS X. That was a copyright violation. If they had produced a full OS X clone without Apple trademarks in the same way the IBM BIOS was cloned, they'd have been OK.
They should have just sold the boxes blank with a note saying Hackintosh compatible. If Apple were really behaving in an anti-competitive way with OS X - which they could do if they behaved towards third party OS X developers in the manner MS behaved towards certain third party Windows developers - Apple could just as easily run afoul of anti-trust law.
It's obvious that Apple has a legal monopoly on iOS. They enjoy that monopoly due to their copyright on the code and binaries. They would only cease to have a monopoly iOS if a competitor clone emerged. Apple has a legal monopoly on iOS granted by copyright in exactly the same manner that MS has a legal monopoly on Windows, also granted by copyright.
It's clear that regulators are currently taking this view towards the iOS ecosystem; Apple dropped the restrictions around using third party frameworks in iOS development after warnings from the FTC and the European Commission that they might start an investigation.
So you can sit there and claim that iOS isn't a market unto itself, but the powers that be clearly feel different and in the above instance there was a case for them to start and investigation into competition concerns.
It's been pointed out elsewhere, but part of the anti-trust suit against MS was down to them using private, undocumented APIs to confer an advantage against third party developers writing for Windows.
I bet Apple will claim that this is different because WiFi Sync is a core OS feature and not a separate application, but MS tried that argument with Internet Explorer and look where that got them.
I suppose this just goes to show that monopolistic, anti-competitive behaviour is an emergent property of proprietary software companies.
Great, you can work from home, good for you. I prefer to go to an office though, as on the occasions I've tried to work from home it's felt either like I'm living at work so I can never relax or, if not that, I feel like I really am at home and so my job is just one of my hobby projects that I can put to one side when I feel like it.
I basically go to work because it adds structure to my day. If I could build an office at the bottom of my garden then that might work for me, but I know I'm not alone in this feeling.
Ars Technica. It lacks the format of/. but, to be honest, this format is the problem.
If you want high quality tech news where the editors aren't afraid to post in the comments calling out idots for lowering the tone, start reading and posting at Ars.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I could have written more clearly, but it most certainly does mean what I said it does.
Clarity and precision in language is necessary for clarity and precision in thought. :)
I'm going to to assume that English isn't your first language, because that's not a sensible reading of what you originally said.
A man can be ruined by a lawsuit. Both in the sense that a plaintiff can take everything he owns and in the sense that he can be cheated out of everything and unable to recover it in court.
this parses as:
A man can be ruined by a lawsuit in the sense that a plaintiff can take everything he owns.
A man can be ruined by a lawsuit in the sense that he can be cheated out of everything and unable to recover it in court.
The first instance suggest that a plaintiff can ruin a man through a lawsuit. The second instance suggest that a plaintiff can cheat a man through a lawsuit, i.e. ruin a man with a lawsuit that has no merit.
Your reply also makes little sense with regards to your initial argument.
It's common enough for crooks to cheat people, knowing they won't be able to take the matter to court.
Surely the problem then would be the lack of a lawsuit? I.e. a crook can cheat a man out of something knowing that the man is too poor to litigate.
As to how this all ties together with this story, Ceglia clearly has had access to justice. He had access to one of the best law firms in the USA and they've cut and run. Whilst there may be issues more generally with access to legal aid in the USA, this isn't an instance of that.
He is the plaintiff!
Basically this guy is trying to sue Zuckerberg. He's had two legal teams quit. The judge doesn't think he, as the plaintiff, deserves any more time to prepare his case: he either has a case or he doesn't.
He's not defending a case, he's not being "prosecuted". He's litigating against Facebook and Zuckerberg.
Yea, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm wondering how much of a compulsive liar this guy must be if he honestly thinks he can forge an email trail. I guess it's worth a shot for a few hundred million dollars though.
Having your legal team resign is a bad sign. Despite most peoples view of lawyers, they are bound to act ethically and if they have reason to believe you're engaging in a fraud they won't represent you.
I don't remember not being able to read. From my earliest memories, my parents were reading to me and I used to read books like Spot the Dog. That gave me a massive headstart going into primary school, as a lot of other kids either hadn't been taught to read by their parents or simply weren't as interested in it.
I do think it's fair to say that intelligence requires hard work. I'm good at the things I do because I've immersed myself in them for most of my life. Practice can even boost IQ test scores, so I think it's fair to say that intelligence can be improved through effort.
I also think the same thing can be true for beauty. Whether or not someone is considered beautiful is a factor of their clothes, body, etc. To a large degree you can change these things with thought and hard work (diet, exercise, developing your fashion sense and so on).
Some people are just ugly and others are just stupid and in the same way some people are just beautiful and others are geniuses. Most people, however, can come fairly close through lots of hard work.
This is beyond silly. The reason Chip & Pin happened in Europe is because payment card operators in Europe got together and decided to do it. They told retailers they didn't have to use it if they didn't want to, but they would be more liable for fraudulent transactions if they didn't.
Given that the increased liability would cost more than the chip & pin terminals, everyone moved over.
Definitely, I think it's more down to practice than to innate gender differences as I know plenty of guys with a terrible sense of direction. I remember I always used to run off in shops, get myself "lost" and find my way back. My mum used to get stressed at me but after a while, she figured out I'd always find my way back and I promised to just never leave whatever shop we were in.
I can do this, although for me I think it's more to do with having an idea of the orientation of the building as I enter and remembering the changes as I've moved around internally.
It's worth pointing out that even though Objectivists and Crypto Anarchists start out from very different moral perspectives, they tend to end up in similar places.
Power won't go away because it's a natural product of human relations. Our economy is a product of social and productive relationships in our society and having a p2p forex system won't fundamentally change anything.
It is nice to have an alternative to things like PayPal for international money transfer. However ,given the computing power that will eventually be required to run the bitcoin network and the requirement to convert bitcoins into local currency so one can pay ones taxes, etc, then it's looking more like you've just done the banks a massive favour by inventing a p2p forex system that enables them to cut costs for themselves.
Once the banks are in on this system I'm sure they'll quickly dominate it. They already operate as lawful, licensed cartels so it seems inevitable that using bitcoin, with its fixed supply, as an intermediary token for forex whilst still charging regular punters extortionate rates for daring to convert the things into real money would be top of their agenda.
Of course, if your concious of the fact that the established banks and their regulators are your mortal enemies then you stand a better chance of getting some sort of victory out of them. Regulation is required to stop national governments banning bitcoin under the pretext that it can be used for laundering, but you should still be very wary of the banking sector.
What's unique about this one is that they successfully spammed the /. submission queue.
The way your criminal justice system works is that the state has to be ready to bring a case the moment you get indicted. The defendant can drag the process out for as long as they like, however.
Everyone in jail has to have a trial date but by and large, those dates are formalities. If you're in jail awaiting trial for murder it's in your best interests to delay for years just so that when you finally go to trial, your attorney can bamboozle any witnesses and introduce reasonable doubt.
OK. That's actually pretty good news, but the treaty as negotiated is still imbalanced as I've commented above.
Still, I guess I learned that now our prosecutors can pull people out of your country too! Our news didn't report that, you guys seeing sense and honouring your negotiated obligations doesn't sell papers you see.
In any case, the treaty we have with the USA isn't the worst of our extradition arrangements. In the European Union we have these things called European Arrest Warrants which mean national police forces can pull anyone out of any country. One guy was extradited to Poland for refusing to pay for his pudding in a cafe!
Actually, subject was dropped in '82. It's still around in the form of British subjects without citizenship or citizen of Eire who applied to become subjects in '48.
Right, but that doesn't redress the imbalance around the fact that the treaty allows for the USA to remove people from the UK for things actions that occur in the UK but are illegal under US law.
To highlight how crazy this is, there's a case of a somone involved in a bribery scandal being extradited even though the alleged crimes occurred entirely between the UK and Nigeria, just because he worked for a firm owned by Haliburton!
Of course it's right that such crimes should be investigated, but things like that are illegal in the UK too. If our criminal justice system doesn't see fit to prosecute, why pull them out to the USA to do it?
Having said that, our police and prosecutors are clearly and obviously corrupt at the highest levels (evidenced by the fact that our Tory government employed a former newspaper editor from News International who has been implicated in a phone hacking scandal, and his former boss even accidentally admitted to parliament that her paper regularly bribes police officers for information) so maybe you're doing us a favour. This is about the principal though!
Back when Tony Blair was in power he signed an extradition treaty with the US which means that if a DA files charges against someone, they can be extradited from the UK. Our Parliament ratified the treaty without inserting a reciprocal clause in the legislation making it dependant on your congress honouring the treaty.
Obviously your congress decided that having US citizens extradited just because a prosecutor in the UK fancied it them was mental, so they didn't ratify that clause. That leaves us with the current imbalance where your criminal justice system can essentially pull anyone out of the UK for any reason.
Banks don't create money.
Central banks print money and lend it to certain banks with interest. In this manner the central banking system functions like a cartel. That money is is then spent as a capital investment in order to generate a return. The actual new value comes about from labour, as all value is generated by people doing things in order to make goods and services for people.
In the UK, debit cards aren't covered by the consumer credit act. Under the CCA your card provider is liable for transactions over a certain amount (I think £50) which basically means if you don't like a product, you can give it back and tell your card provider you're not paying them.
If I use PayPal charged to my debit card (as I don't use a CC. I really should get one just to build my credit rating, but I never get around to it) it would mean I can use PayPal to get money back!
What are the chances of this thing getting out and eating all our forests? A kind of brown, pulpy goo....
The OS X situation was completely different as the Mac clones were violating the terms of OS X. That was a copyright violation. If they had produced a full OS X clone without Apple trademarks in the same way the IBM BIOS was cloned, they'd have been OK.
They should have just sold the boxes blank with a note saying Hackintosh compatible. If Apple were really behaving in an anti-competitive way with OS X - which they could do if they behaved towards third party OS X developers in the manner MS behaved towards certain third party Windows developers - Apple could just as easily run afoul of anti-trust law.
It's obvious that Apple has a legal monopoly on iOS. They enjoy that monopoly due to their copyright on the code and binaries. They would only cease to have a monopoly iOS if a competitor clone emerged. Apple has a legal monopoly on iOS granted by copyright in exactly the same manner that MS has a legal monopoly on Windows, also granted by copyright.
It's clear that regulators are currently taking this view towards the iOS ecosystem; Apple dropped the restrictions around using third party frameworks in iOS development after warnings from the FTC and the European Commission that they might start an investigation.
So you can sit there and claim that iOS isn't a market unto itself, but the powers that be clearly feel different and in the above instance there was a case for them to start and investigation into competition concerns.
In response to your sig, it would seem that criticising Apple could be included!
Apple fans yet again reminding me why, after being here for more than a decade, I usually make a point of ignoring Apple stories.
It's been pointed out elsewhere, but part of the anti-trust suit against MS was down to them using private, undocumented APIs to confer an advantage against third party developers writing for Windows.
I bet Apple will claim that this is different because WiFi Sync is a core OS feature and not a separate application, but MS tried that argument with Internet Explorer and look where that got them.
I suppose this just goes to show that monopolistic, anti-competitive behaviour is an emergent property of proprietary software companies.
Great, you can work from home, good for you. I prefer to go to an office though, as on the occasions I've tried to work from home it's felt either like I'm living at work so I can never relax or, if not that, I feel like I really am at home and so my job is just one of my hobby projects that I can put to one side when I feel like it.
I basically go to work because it adds structure to my day. If I could build an office at the bottom of my garden then that might work for me, but I know I'm not alone in this feeling.
Ars Technica. It lacks the format of /. but, to be honest, this format is the problem.
If you want high quality tech news where the editors aren't afraid to post in the comments calling out idots for lowering the tone, start reading and posting at Ars.