I don't think that the 11th Amendment has been interpreted to bar states from suing each other, just citizens of states (or foreign nationals) from suing states for monetary relief. See e.g. the water wars between GA and FL.
Note that even if the 11th was implicated in State v. State, it would only stop a suit for damages. Anyone can still sue a state (or its agent/official, etc) for prospective injunctive relief. So, exactly the kind of thing OK and NB want: "Hey CO, stop selling legal pot!"
First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.
That's usually (roughly) the right answer when someone cries "But the First Amendment!" on Slashdot. However, your interpretation is too narrow.
In point of fact, the 1st Amendment does impose hard limits in other parts of the law, like defamation and copyright. It's not just about jackboots smashing our cameras.
The American version of Fair Use, for instance, is qualitatively stronger than the EU and most of the rest of the world. That's at least partly because the Supreme Court recognizes constitutional (1A) limits on how strong and absolute the restriction of speech is allowed to be.
All that is to say: First Amendment protection for journalism and dissemination of newsworthy/public interest speech will absolutely be a factor that a judge will explicitly weigh if any of this ever makes it into a courtroom.
Let's take Uber at its word and accept that the "full range of safety mechanisms" was truly applied, and those mechanisms comport with contemporary acceptable standards for background checks in India.
If that is the case, and the guy came up clean but yet still went on to do X, how is Uber any more culpable than a taxi company hiring a cabbie with no record, who subsequently goes out and does X, or a tour company hiring a bus driver with a spotless background, who nonetheless does X?
... Michael Porter isn't over-selling it./sarcasm I imagine that his company has a vested interest in the IoT, so he's totally objective.
Well, to be fair, Michael Porter isn't selling anything. Didn't you read the headline? Harvard said all this stuff.
I share your General Meh** for the coming <blink>Internet of Things</blink>, but I'm really excited for the coming era of ubiquitous corporate anthropomorphism.
**You know, the legendarily indifferent warlord with the awesome chicken.
We need a logo for posts that are just about swearing at Bennett. Dunce cap?
AC, that's a capital idea! I like dunce cap, but allow me to propose some alternative icons for Bennett articles:
- A hot air balloon
- A whoopie cushion
- The smiling poop emoticon
- Rageface
- That truck window sticker of Calvin peeing, but he's peeing on TFS
That's just a few off the top of my head. Feel free to add suggestions!
Good trolling effort, but a bit too obvious. Better luck next time.
Yah wow, I mean if you're going to telegraph it, might as well go for trolling gold! Don't you have some unusually inflammatory opinions about Apple, Obama, copyrights, Edward Snowden, gamergate, race relations, SCO, systemd, climate change, and Israel?
Bingo! Parent's post is the definition of "Informative". There should be a mechanism by which enough mod points over +5 will turn a post into a sticky at the top of the discussion.
No, no, no, you'll never be a true Dice webditor with a headline like that. Try something like, "Which 5 Meaningless Buzzwords Are Least Worth Your Time??" or "5 Words That Give Kim Kardashian a Meaningless Buzz!"
Bonus points for correctly identifying embedded systems as a "weird old tip."
And no vicious hatred in the south persisting across generations and taken out on the only victims available.
I believe the vicious hatred stems more from brutal Reconstruction-era policies (much motivated by outrage at Lincoln's assassination) than from the war itself. The entire American South would've been much better off without John Wilkes Booth.
If anyone could've threaded the needle during that delicate time, it was Abe. Lincoln's successor, President Johnson, was no Lincoln, and squandered his political capital losing battles with the Radical Republicans. So you have multiple tracks of dominoes falling from the assassination, leading to a very vindictive (but also more staunchly pro-civil rights, which IMHO is the morally correct side of history) Reconstruction.
Also, offhand, I don't see how a gradual "free at birth" policy would operate in practice. Yes, on paper and in the aggregate, it could work. But what do you do with a generation of babies born to parents who are property? Who's going to raise these "free" children if not their enslaved parents? Who is going to ensure that these kids wind up independent and enfranchised? Knowing that (even to this day) a parent's wealth and ability to provide are major determinants of life outcome, how can you expect children born in captivity to actually escape the plantation, get an education or job, and actually live free lives? No, I think such a plan would've perpetuated de facto slavery for pretty much all southern blacks, well into the 20th century.
You can blame the Civil War, or (more accurately) what happened after the War, but it's wishful thinking to say it was "needless." More, even, to imagine that the deep rooted racial attitudes were caused by the War itself, and could somehow be mitigated by slowing southern blacks' path out of bondage.
I've never understood this handwaving explanation of people "giving up" or "getting discouraged and dropping out" of the labor force. So you don't have a job, it lasts a long time, unemployment runs out, and... just... shucks? Where is the food and shelter coming from?**
Nobody gets to just say "fuck it." When you stop swimming, you stop eating. So you hunker down, maybe you're "underemployed" in a less than ideal job for shitty pay. But I have an incredibly hard time believing people are voluntarily hanging it up, trading in (at least the pursuit of) a middle class lifestyle for food stamps.
So besides retirees and live-at-home grads, who has the luxury of not even bothering to look for work anymore, such that they're disappearing from the unemployment figures?
**Even most assistance programs have some kind of work or active search requirement.
Bingo, mod parent up. CurrentC is a DO NOT WANT for lots of reasons (especially access to medical data), but making it an ACH payment is a TERRIBLE IDEA.
You have the legal right to tell your bank not to pay out debit transactions that cost more money than you have (overdraft). If you decline overdraft "protection" (really, "can you please rape me with fees" protection), the transaction will fail and you will be charged neither at the POS nor a fee from the bank.
You sometimes have a similar option with your bank, to not pay out ACH transactions that cost more money than you have. BUT, if an ACH payment presents, and your bank declines (per your instructions), they will charge you a fee equal to the overdraft fee anyway. And the merchant/whoever that submitted the ACH payment could have you for a bounced check fee, too.
As to GGP's sentiments... class, raise your hand if you keep a handwritten checkbook ledger of all your paper, electronic ACH, and debit transactions. Now, keep your hand up if you also cross-reference each of your entries against when the bank actually pends and posts all your transactions. Ok, look around you. The rest of us use technology so we don't have to spend hours doing that. And we ought to be able to trust that technology to say if there's enough money in the account.
This post, in its few words, may be many things... but a troll? If you squint real hard, you could mayyyyybe get flamebait (fanbait? fanboit?). This seems more like a tongue in cheek way to say something like "I purposefully don't deal with/buy anything from Apple, so they don't exist to me."
At first I knee-jerk disagreed, because of my personal feelings about their crazy "it's ok to break other peoples' stuff" mentality. But looking at it from a HW mfr perspective, you're absolutely right.
I know that my supplier is tough on counterfeits, check. They're already top in quality, check. And also, I will never incur support costs in dealing with angry end-users complaining about bricked chips. My competitors might, if they're cheapos, and that's a competitive advantage. The aggregate cost to cleanup their mess could even outweigh the few cents they saved going with a counterfeit.
The lawyery answer is always "it depends", and this kind of case would be very complex and nuanced, with lots of very expensive experts.
In terms of actual-duke-it-out-in-court liability, my gut says there's a pretty good chance they could be on the hook if something catastrophic happened.
In terms of whats-my-exposure liability, it's pretty unlikely that bricking/temp-fubaring a bunch of usb to serial devices would lead to something catastrophic in the first place. Maybe I'm off on this, depends on what these are most often used for ("Oh Jesus my insulin!!! I'm fading fast, someone get me a printer cable!")
But in terms of oh-god-it-actually-happened-what-do-I-do liability, I'd tell FTDI to settle in a heartbeat. "Grandma died because we decided to get cute with the guts of a device you own" is going to play very poorly for a jury. Could be winnable, but it's toxic.
Pushing this out to unsuspecting, innocent end users through WU and intentionally (by their own statements) jacking with the ID to make the device unusable... I mean the bottom line is the righteous engineer who greenlighted this definitely did not ask Legal first.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that the 11th Amendment has been interpreted to bar states from suing each other, just citizens of states (or foreign nationals) from suing states for monetary relief. See e.g. the water wars between GA and FL.
Note that even if the 11th was implicated in State v. State, it would only stop a suit for damages. Anyone can still sue a state (or its agent/official, etc) for prospective injunctive relief. So, exactly the kind of thing OK and NB want: "Hey CO, stop selling legal pot!"
First amendment has nothing to do with this. The first amendment protects from criminal government prosecution, not reactions from private individuals/entities.
That's usually (roughly) the right answer when someone cries "But the First Amendment!" on Slashdot. However, your interpretation is too narrow.
In point of fact, the 1st Amendment does impose hard limits in other parts of the law, like defamation and copyright. It's not just about jackboots smashing our cameras.
The American version of Fair Use, for instance, is qualitatively stronger than the EU and most of the rest of the world. That's at least partly because the Supreme Court recognizes constitutional (1A) limits on how strong and absolute the restriction of speech is allowed to be.
All that is to say: First Amendment protection for journalism and dissemination of newsworthy/public interest speech will absolutely be a factor that a judge will explicitly weigh if any of this ever makes it into a courtroom.
Let's take Uber at its word and accept that the "full range of safety mechanisms" was truly applied, and those mechanisms comport with contemporary acceptable standards for background checks in India.
If that is the case, and the guy came up clean but yet still went on to do X, how is Uber any more culpable than a taxi company hiring a cabbie with no record, who subsequently goes out and does X, or a tour company hiring a bus driver with a spotless background, who nonetheless does X?
Well, to be fair, Michael Porter isn't selling anything. Didn't you read the headline? Harvard said all this stuff.
I share your General Meh** for the coming <blink>Internet of Things</blink>, but I'm really excited for the coming era of ubiquitous corporate anthropomorphism.
**You know, the legendarily indifferent warlord with the awesome chicken.
Love it
1) I think Dice gets ad revenue based on page views, and... maybe posts per article factors in?
2) They know when they put up some dubious Bennett novella, we'll all swoop in and post "What the fuck?!"
3) ???
4) Profit?
Nice try, Bennett! But wasn't it you bothering us by posting this?
We need a logo for posts that are just about swearing at Bennett. Dunce cap?
AC, that's a capital idea! I like dunce cap, but allow me to propose some alternative icons for Bennett articles:
- A hot air balloon
- A whoopie cushion
- The smiling poop emoticon
- Rageface
- That truck window sticker of Calvin peeing, but he's peeing on TFS
That's just a few off the top of my head. Feel free to add suggestions!
...oh it's Bennett. Anyone else want to post here first? Anyone? Maybe you're all still reading the 28 paragraph TFS?
Good trolling effort, but a bit too obvious. Better luck next time.
Yah wow, I mean if you're going to telegraph it, might as well go for trolling gold! Don't you have some unusually inflammatory opinions about Apple, Obama, copyrights, Edward Snowden, gamergate, race relations, SCO, systemd, climate change, and Israel?
Bingo! Parent's post is the definition of "Informative". There should be a mechanism by which enough mod points over +5 will turn a post into a sticky at the top of the discussion.
new green flavor enhancer
Those croissants.... couldn't keep em down but they cured my syphilis!
"5 Meaningless buzzwords not worth your time"
No, no, no, you'll never be a true Dice webditor with a headline like that. Try something like, "Which 5 Meaningless Buzzwords Are Least Worth Your Time??" or "5 Words That Give Kim Kardashian a Meaningless Buzz!"
Bonus points for correctly identifying embedded systems as a "weird old tip."
Put him on the kernel team and Linus accept a commit by him - *that* would be news. :-)
This kid could be ready to do just that by the time he's seven. Problem is, he won't be ready to read Linus' comments until he's seventeen.
During peek hour
That's one hell of a way to get people to ride public transit!
Wait, I'm getting something... PedantryBot, are you trying to tell me Shados meant "peak hour"?
And no vicious hatred in the south persisting across generations and taken out on the only victims available.
I believe the vicious hatred stems more from brutal Reconstruction-era policies (much motivated by outrage at Lincoln's assassination) than from the war itself. The entire American South would've been much better off without John Wilkes Booth.
If anyone could've threaded the needle during that delicate time, it was Abe. Lincoln's successor, President Johnson, was no Lincoln, and squandered his political capital losing battles with the Radical Republicans. So you have multiple tracks of dominoes falling from the assassination, leading to a very vindictive (but also more staunchly pro-civil rights, which IMHO is the morally correct side of history) Reconstruction.
Also, offhand, I don't see how a gradual "free at birth" policy would operate in practice. Yes, on paper and in the aggregate, it could work. But what do you do with a generation of babies born to parents who are property? Who's going to raise these "free" children if not their enslaved parents? Who is going to ensure that these kids wind up independent and enfranchised? Knowing that (even to this day) a parent's wealth and ability to provide are major determinants of life outcome, how can you expect children born in captivity to actually escape the plantation, get an education or job, and actually live free lives? No, I think such a plan would've perpetuated de facto slavery for pretty much all southern blacks, well into the 20th century.
You can blame the Civil War, or (more accurately) what happened after the War, but it's wishful thinking to say it was "needless." More, even, to imagine that the deep rooted racial attitudes were caused by the War itself, and could somehow be mitigated by slowing southern blacks' path out of bondage.
I'm a Gentile User, you insensitive clod!
I've never understood this handwaving explanation of people "giving up" or "getting discouraged and dropping out" of the labor force. So you don't have a job, it lasts a long time, unemployment runs out, and... just... shucks? Where is the food and shelter coming from?**
Nobody gets to just say "fuck it." When you stop swimming, you stop eating. So you hunker down, maybe you're "underemployed" in a less than ideal job for shitty pay. But I have an incredibly hard time believing people are voluntarily hanging it up, trading in (at least the pursuit of) a middle class lifestyle for food stamps.
So besides retirees and live-at-home grads, who has the luxury of not even bothering to look for work anymore, such that they're disappearing from the unemployment figures?
**Even most assistance programs have some kind of work or active search requirement.
Two dozen furlongs per fortnight is roughly 0.009 mph (0.014 kph). That's not so much "travelling" as it is "not quite sitting still."
Only a pedant would call him out for that! It's pretty clear he intended to say "bakers dozens of furlongs per fortnight."
Best AC FTFY I have ever seen. Hats off to you, brave coward.
Bingo, mod parent up. CurrentC is a DO NOT WANT for lots of reasons (especially access to medical data), but making it an ACH payment is a TERRIBLE IDEA.
You have the legal right to tell your bank not to pay out debit transactions that cost more money than you have (overdraft). If you decline overdraft "protection" (really, "can you please rape me with fees" protection), the transaction will fail and you will be charged neither at the POS nor a fee from the bank.
You sometimes have a similar option with your bank, to not pay out ACH transactions that cost more money than you have. BUT, if an ACH payment presents, and your bank declines (per your instructions), they will charge you a fee equal to the overdraft fee anyway. And the merchant/whoever that submitted the ACH payment could have you for a bounced check fee, too.
As to GGP's sentiments... class, raise your hand if you keep a handwritten checkbook ledger of all your paper, electronic ACH, and debit transactions. Now, keep your hand up if you also cross-reference each of your entries against when the bank actually pends and posts all your transactions. Ok, look around you. The rest of us use technology so we don't have to spend hours doing that. And we ought to be able to trust that technology to say if there's enough money in the account.
Who are they?
This post, in its few words, may be many things... but a troll? If you squint real hard, you could mayyyyybe get flamebait (fanbait? fanboit?). This seems more like a tongue in cheek way to say something like "I purposefully don't deal with/buy anything from Apple, so they don't exist to me."
At first I knee-jerk disagreed, because of my personal feelings about their crazy "it's ok to break other peoples' stuff" mentality. But looking at it from a HW mfr perspective, you're absolutely right.
I know that my supplier is tough on counterfeits, check. They're already top in quality, check. And also, I will never incur support costs in dealing with angry end-users complaining about bricked chips. My competitors might, if they're cheapos, and that's a competitive advantage. The aggregate cost to cleanup their mess could even outweigh the few cents they saved going with a counterfeit.
Mod parent funny! I thought I had a spare mod point stashed somewhere, but it's nowhere to be found.
The lawyery answer is always "it depends", and this kind of case would be very complex and nuanced, with lots of very expensive experts.
In terms of actual-duke-it-out-in-court liability, my gut says there's a pretty good chance they could be on the hook if something catastrophic happened.
In terms of whats-my-exposure liability, it's pretty unlikely that bricking/temp-fubaring a bunch of usb to serial devices would lead to something catastrophic in the first place. Maybe I'm off on this, depends on what these are most often used for ("Oh Jesus my insulin!!! I'm fading fast, someone get me a printer cable!")
But in terms of oh-god-it-actually-happened-what-do-I-do liability, I'd tell FTDI to settle in a heartbeat. "Grandma died because we decided to get cute with the guts of a device you own" is going to play very poorly for a jury. Could be winnable, but it's toxic.
Pushing this out to unsuspecting, innocent end users through WU and intentionally (by their own statements) jacking with the ID to make the device unusable... I mean the bottom line is the righteous engineer who greenlighted this definitely did not ask Legal first.