But you can bet that AOL's exploring the possibility as a means of expanding its plateauing userbase. There are only so many humans you can pitch a service to. Cows and corn are much more numerous and and untapped as yet.
You may not sell your vote, but your congressman may sell his vote. Just Rosie O'Donnell won't let you own your guns, but her son's bodyguard gets to own his guns.
The party with the deepest pockets can hire the biggest lawyers. Bigger lawyers means more room to fill with bullshit, and as we all remember, bullshit is what wins these frivolous lawsuits.
Sometimes, it's more effective to sue little people who cannot contest your suit. If your utility function is something like $=(assets)/(countersuingpower) where countersuingpower is a function of assets, then the maximum of $ is perhaps suing someone with midrange assets.
You're also forgetting that the purpose of these lawsuits is not to maximize $ but to maximize legal restraint of the party sued. That requires a whole 'nother system of equations.
It's your fair use to use MP3.com's system. The problem is, MP3.com had to copy and reencode a whole lot'a music to create their system, and that is the official copyright violation here.
No, it says they had the foresight to realize that fat-but-quickly-becoming-desperate industries are the quickest to resort to litigation. It's par for the course.
He understood it perfectly: it's great for frying chickens and electrocuting criminals. Where would the great state of Florida be without his contribution to the art of senseless destruction of human life?
Hmmm. I see now that Microsoft has adopted a new marketing ploy of using hexadecimal to represent prices, thereby conserving digits and thereby giving the false appearance of a lower price. I must say, though, $3,840 is a lot to pay per seat in desktop liscensing fees. Those wiley Microsoft bastards!
Those figures are weekly. If you earn $50 million per week for a few months domestically and abroad, then it quickly adds up toa couple hundred million dollars.
All courts have the authority to declare a federal law unconstitutional. If two courts in two different jurisdictions make incompatible rulings, then it is the supreme court's job to resolve the question in either direction, but lower courts are free (in fact, required) to entertain the quesiton in advance. In fact, few cases proceed to the supreme court without such controversy.
The "Defense of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional, but not for the reasons you cited. States already have the recognized authority to define marriage as they see fit, and numerous examples have been upheld by the federal judiciary (regarding varying restrictions on marriage between first-cousins, minors, etc.). Essentially, a state is allowed to declare certain types of marriage contrary to important public policy, and therefore not recognized, without implicating Article IV. (Fourteenth Amendment concerns are a completely different matter, of course.)
DOMA, however, exceeds congressional authority in that it purports to give the states rights that either they already have (which they do, unless you can mount a 14th-amendment equal-protection case as I believe should/can be done) or they don't have. Either way, congress has nothing to say, constitutionally, on the matter. And if the 14th amendment would require gay marriages be recognized, then congress moreover doesn't have authority under section 4 of the 14th amendment to abrogate that requirement -- congress is only granted power to enforce the 14th amendment against the states, not to negate it.
By the way, your info concerning Hawaii is a couple years out of date. Yes, the Hawaiin supreme course came down with Baehr v. Lewis back in 1994 or so, but there was a state-constitutional amendment passed in 1998 to allow the legislature to define marriage as it saw fit (to exclude gays). Same goes for Alaska. The current hotspot is in Vermont, which has approved domestic-partnerships after its own unanimous supreme-court ruling earlier this year, but domestic partnership needn't be recognized by other states with the same effect as marriage. Further litigation is likely to determine whether domestic partnership goes far enough to satisfy Vermont's equal-protection guarantee, which is among the broadest in the nation. Massachusetts is likely to be next, as it has an equal-protection clause as broad as Vermont's and it has an "equal-rights amendment" explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sex. Rhode Island is also on the horizon, though that state may bypass the judicial branch altogether and do it all from within the legislature.
Physicist Alan Natapoff has demonstrably proved that, mathematically speaking, the Electoral College is superior to a normal popular vote in that the Electoral College actually increases the likelihood that a single voter will turn the election. There are good reasons for keeping the current system.
Does anyone else get the idea when looking at Eazel's logo that the poor penguin is about to be squashed under the weight of the precipitously balanced puzzle piece? I hope it's not an allegory for Eazel's products' stability or performance.
No, the traditional Sherbert doctrine approach to such laws was to uphold facially neutral-with-respect-to-religion laws that infringe upon religious freedom only when the state interest advanced was compelling and the law was the narrowest one that could advance that interest. This was changed, as I alluded to, in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that religiously neutral laws that infringe upon relgious rights will be upheld regardless -- specifically, that a law prohibiting the use of peyote by all citizens cannot be constitutionally attacked by Native Americans who require its use for their religious practices, even if there is no demonstrable compelling state interest to prevent peyote's consumption in a highly ritualized/structured/controlled environment. This is what is known as bullshit.
The constitution reserves a special place for religious interests in American jurisprudence, just as it does for alcohol via the 18th and 21st amendments. If you disagree with this fact, then the intellectually honest thing to do would be to seek a constitutional amendment.
Because that would defeat the entire purpose of dual liscensing it under the MPL, something AOL/Netscape is unwilling to do. That, and it would let Microsoft incorporate Gecko into IE without releasing the rest of IE as open-source.
MPL makes Netscape the privileged first-developer of all MPLed code, giving a right other developers don't have: the right to fold all MPLed code back into closed-source programs. This is in stark contrast to the GPL, which makes no developer a privileged developer.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean you didn't know about hidden sid="tradesecrets" where we've been posting all our company's private data?
CmdrTaco has a slashdot uid of 1 (whereas you have #98098).
Is that a new flavor of coffee?
But you can bet that AOL's exploring the possibility as a means of expanding its plateauing userbase. There are only so many humans you can pitch a service to. Cows and corn are much more numerous and and untapped as yet.
You may not sell your vote, but your congressman may sell his vote. Just Rosie O'Donnell won't let you own your guns, but her son's bodyguard gets to own his guns.
The party with the deepest pockets can hire the biggest lawyers. Bigger lawyers means more room to fill with bullshit, and as we all remember, bullshit is what wins these frivolous lawsuits.
Sometimes, it's more effective to sue little people who cannot contest your suit. If your utility function is something like $=(assets)/(countersuingpower) where countersuingpower is a function of assets, then the maximum of $ is perhaps suing someone with midrange assets.
You're also forgetting that the purpose of these lawsuits is not to maximize $ but to maximize legal restraint of the party sued. That requires a whole 'nother system of equations.
It's your fair use to use MP3.com's system. The problem is, MP3.com had to copy and reencode a whole lot'a music to create their system, and that is the official copyright violation here.
No, it says they had the foresight to realize that fat-but-quickly-becoming-desperate industries are the quickest to resort to litigation. It's par for the course.
He understood it perfectly: it's great for frying chickens and electrocuting criminals. Where would the great state of Florida be without his contribution to the art of senseless destruction of human life?
It was a conservative estimate.
if linux doesn't do a task as good as $FOO...
Hmmm. I see now that Microsoft has adopted a new marketing ploy of using hexadecimal to represent prices, thereby conserving digits and thereby giving the false appearance of a lower price. I must say, though, $3,840 is a lot to pay per seat in desktop liscensing fees. Those wiley Microsoft bastards!
And yes, I too have perl rot on the brain.
The normally inaccessible Mr. Torvalds spoke in an interview....
Am I the only one who considers Linus one of the most accessible leaders in the tech industry? The man is like the Finish brother in law I never had.
Those figures are weekly. If you earn $50 million per week for a few months domestically and abroad, then it quickly adds up toa couple hundred million dollars.
But it certainly wouldn't be better if we all had to drive on separate highways.
The Southpark movie made several hundred million dollars. It turns out that adults enjoy behaving like the children they hypocritically deride.
Why not just "YHBT"? It'd be funny to watch how few investors would pick up on the name.
Nasa has announced that their new space broom will be advertised during the Super Bowl by a digitally recreated dancing Alan Shepard....
All courts have the authority to declare a federal law unconstitutional. If two courts in two different jurisdictions make incompatible rulings, then it is the supreme court's job to resolve the question in either direction, but lower courts are free (in fact, required) to entertain the quesiton in advance. In fact, few cases proceed to the supreme court without such controversy.
The "Defense of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional, but not for the reasons you cited. States already have the recognized authority to define marriage as they see fit, and numerous examples have been upheld by the federal judiciary (regarding varying restrictions on marriage between first-cousins, minors, etc.). Essentially, a state is allowed to declare certain types of marriage contrary to important public policy, and therefore not recognized, without implicating Article IV. (Fourteenth Amendment concerns are a completely different matter, of course.)
DOMA, however, exceeds congressional authority in that it purports to give the states rights that either they already have (which they do, unless you can mount a 14th-amendment equal-protection case as I believe should/can be done) or they don't have. Either way, congress has nothing to say, constitutionally, on the matter. And if the 14th amendment would require gay marriages be recognized, then congress moreover doesn't have authority under section 4 of the 14th amendment to abrogate that requirement -- congress is only granted power to enforce the 14th amendment against the states, not to negate it.
By the way, your info concerning Hawaii is a couple years out of date. Yes, the Hawaiin supreme course came down with Baehr v. Lewis back in 1994 or so, but there was a state-constitutional amendment passed in 1998 to allow the legislature to define marriage as it saw fit (to exclude gays). Same goes for Alaska. The current hotspot is in Vermont, which has approved domestic-partnerships after its own unanimous supreme-court ruling earlier this year, but domestic partnership needn't be recognized by other states with the same effect as marriage. Further litigation is likely to determine whether domestic partnership goes far enough to satisfy Vermont's equal-protection guarantee, which is among the broadest in the nation. Massachusetts is likely to be next, as it has an equal-protection clause as broad as Vermont's and it has an "equal-rights amendment" explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sex. Rhode Island is also on the horizon, though that state may bypass the judicial branch altogether and do it all from within the legislature.
Physicist Alan Natapoff has demonstrably proved that, mathematically speaking, the Electoral College is superior to a normal popular vote in that the Electoral College actually increases the likelihood that a single voter will turn the election. There are good reasons for keeping the current system.
Maybe you're thinking of berlin. It's always had impressive promise, but it's never been trully possible to speak of it in the present tense.
Does anyone else get the idea when looking at Eazel's logo that the poor penguin is about to be squashed under the weight of the precipitously balanced puzzle piece? I hope it's not an allegory for Eazel's products' stability or performance.
No, the traditional Sherbert doctrine approach to such laws was to uphold facially neutral-with-respect-to-religion laws that infringe upon religious freedom only when the state interest advanced was compelling and the law was the narrowest one that could advance that interest. This was changed, as I alluded to, in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that religiously neutral laws that infringe upon relgious rights will be upheld regardless -- specifically, that a law prohibiting the use of peyote by all citizens cannot be constitutionally attacked by Native Americans who require its use for their religious practices, even if there is no demonstrable compelling state interest to prevent peyote's consumption in a highly ritualized/structured/controlled environment. This is what is known as bullshit.
The constitution reserves a special place for religious interests in American jurisprudence, just as it does for alcohol via the 18th and 21st amendments. If you disagree with this fact, then the intellectually honest thing to do would be to seek a constitutional amendment.
Because that would defeat the entire purpose of dual liscensing it under the MPL, something AOL/Netscape is unwilling to do. That, and it would let Microsoft incorporate Gecko into IE without releasing the rest of IE as open-source.
MPL makes Netscape the privileged first-developer of all MPLed code, giving a right other developers don't have: the right to fold all MPLed code back into closed-source programs. This is in stark contrast to the GPL, which makes no developer a privileged developer.