It's not actually a fallacy. While the restatements are not binding law, they are restatements because they aim to restate the legal principles held by the majority or plurality of courts and legal scholars. Therefore, you can reasonably conclude that the ideas expressed will be prevailing legal principles of the day.
It seems that ever since going to law school, all I see on Slashdot is people incorrectly claiming knowledge of the law. The parent is a good example.
The Second Restatement of Torts, Section 402A Special liability of seller of product for physical harm to user or consumer, states: 1)A seller of a product in a defective condition is liable if
a) the seller's business is to sell that product, and
b) it is expected to and does reach the consumer without modifications 2) Section 1 applies even though
a) the seller has exercised all reasonable care, and
b) the sure or consumer did not enter any contract with the seller.
This results in a situation of strict liability. There is also an implied warranty of merchantability, as seen in Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (NJ 1960, 671). Further, this is not about to go away in the near future as the draft of the third restatement includes clause (see the section on products liability).
"The general gist is correct, but "innocent until proven guilty" is a principle that applies to criminal matters, not civil matters."
That's patently false. Sometimes, the burden of proof is with the defendant because of the nature of the case. For example, in cases of joint liability (for example, where 2 people are shooting wildly in the woods and a third person is shot, and neither of the 2 people actually know which one killed the 3rd person), then the 2 people must prove that they didn't kill the 3rd person in order to not be held personally liable. This only arises after it has been shown that they were jointly liable, though. Another example is res ipsa loquitor. This means that the thing that happened is evidence of negligence unto itself. Usually, the plaintiff is not in a position to be able to prove what exactly happened to him, but the certain thing that happened to him could only have happened through negligence of the defendant. In all of these cases, you still need to hale someone into court and show that they are negligent and then they may have to prove otherwise, but that's not assuming that they aren't innocent until proven guilty.
It isn't true that both parties have to have the ability to modify the contract to their satisfaction (I'm in law school and I've taken contracts... ). EULAs are adhesion contracts, which force the accepting party to the terms of the offering party. From Obstetrics & Gynecologists Ltd. v. Pepper (693 P.2d 1259) 'An adhesion contract need not be unenforceable if it falls within reasonable expectations of the weaker or "adhering" party and is not unduly oppressive. However, courts will not enforce against an adhering party a provision limiting the duties or abilities of the stronger party absent plain and clear notification of the terms and an understanding consent.' So, in the end, you are right that this won't be enforced, but for the wrong reason.
You're not completely correct. Trespass (to land) is different from trespass to chattels. Trespass does not require that property be marked. Trespass to chattels has, in the past, required proof of damages while trespass to land is, in itself, a tort that guarantees victory simply because you trespassed (Dougherty v Stepp 18 N.C. 371). So at the very least you would be entitled to monetary damages in the case of any trespass whatsoever. The government may mark their machines, but it is a tort either way. You may be talking about criminal proceedings, in which case you right. There was a case called Intel Corp v Hamidi 71 P.3d 296 (Cal. 2003) in which it was ruled that user using another person's network, if it was hooked up to the internet, was not trespass to chattels. This decision may be modifying that one somewhat. But in that case, it was made clear that trespass does not apply to the internet, only trespass to chattels.
Anecdotal (and unsubstantiated) evidence about the quality of the service in not is a reasonable comparison of the two formats. You should know that. There could be any number of factors contributing to the state of affairs (should they be true) that exist in India including marketing and the actual infrastructure that has been built for each format. In the US, Verizon is often credited with having the best customer loyalty (see this) and reception - so does that mean that somehow CDMA is a better and more mature technology with less vendor lock-in in the US, but in India GSM is a better and more mature technology with less vendor lock-in?
Technically you are congratulating him for doing what he is paid to do - no more. I mean, it's an interesting story, but I don't know if he deserves congratulations because he didn't chose to not green-light it. Maybe the parent was being facetious, but I can't tell.
Re:Nothing wrong with revisiting the decision
on
Hope for Hubble
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I totally agree with you, but just for argument's sake... Dell doesn't really do an awful lot of innovating either. They resell almost everything they sell and don't do an awful lot of r&d by themselves, but Dell has a market cap > $100 billion, and hpq is not quite $60 billion... so it just goes to show that innovation does not a successful company make. They seem to be competing on two different fronts against the juggernauts in each industry - IBM in innovation and high end servers, and Dell in lower-end resale of conumer and entry-level business products, and are having an identity crises, so they're losing in both segments.
There are certainly some projects that are like the one that you mentioned. But the continued prevelance of "if doesn't work on anything but IE, that's probably good enough" extends beyond the limited circumstance that you've listed. I personally worked for a large bioinformatics website where the IT staff actually used mozilla themselves, but programmed for IE just because they wanted this [crappy] dynamic menu system that was ActiveX. I think that's the sort of lazy developer the gp was talking about. I eventually rewrote the whole thing b/c I refused to use IE even for testing.
Samsung had an HDTV plasma TV that wasn't available to purchase yet - it was 102". No bars or anything. There was a crows of 30 people around that TV every time I passed by.
Re:How Israeli Companies Are Succeeding...
on
Business Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
Woah... you're pretty angry. Do you rewrite that sermon every time - complete with the bold tags and everything - or is it just a copy-and-paste affair?
Plus, US policies don't make China "more powerful by the minute." I think has a lot to do with Chinese policies. Can you give them a little credit?
And then China will steal your girlfriend. They'll steal all your jokes, and even your signature moves in bed. And they'll charge you when she wants to go out for a coffee two years later, just to talk about old times.
The article said that one of the major reasons people don't like e-mail is that there is no immediate assurance that the message has arrived at its destination. Does SMS (or IM, for that matter) have any guarantee? The article makes sense, though. SMS and IM are attractive in that you don't have to express every thought on the subject at once, but you can at least have some conversational simulation with these. I'd use SMS, but I refuse on principle to pay 10 cents for each message I sent.
The French do have the stereotype about being rude to tourists - especially Parisians. It has nothing to do with recent history. I'm a left-winger, for the record.
They're definitely not patentable. Patents are for implementations - that's why all (most?) patents start with "A method for"... so unless there's only one way of doing tabbed browsing, it's not at all patentable. However, if MS copies Firefox in IE, then it just makes IE better and everyone wins. Same way whenever MS improves word and OpenOffice copies it, everyone wins. IT's competition. MS has shown they're not really inovating in the browser market - they're playing catch up (poorly at that).
Hoestly, what do you expect the CEO of Microsoft to do in the face of open source competion? He's not paid the big bucks to sit down and say "Well, I guess Linux has us beat... it was a good run while it lasted." He's paid to at least make it seems like MS has the better product, so he commissions studies that help his point and cites the useful points from those studies. You can't beat open-source software by it's nature. He would not be the CEO of MS if he said "Although certain installations may be cheaper running Windows, the vast majority should run Linux if they are interested in security and savings." I don't understand why people get their panties in a bunch about this.
I mean: Just like cell phones are lossless? There will still be interference, missed packets etc. You can't say that just because it's digital, all the problems will gone. Furthermore, the wireless-ness of the speakers has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You are just talking about using a digitial, rather than analog technology to send audio information over to the speakers and then have them DAC and amplify it. Bang and Oluffson already does something like this (with wired technology), but people don't but them because they're ridiculously expensive and they still don't sound as good as a comparably priced "standard" system. You pay so much more for 5 amps this way and you lose so much in return.
Just like cell phones are lossless? There will still be is etc. You can't say that just because it's dignterference, missed packetital, all the problems will gone. Furthermore, the wireless-ness of the speakers has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You are just talking about using a digitial, rather than analog technology to send audio information over to the speakers and then have them DAC and amplify it. Bang and Oluffson already does something like this (with wired technology), but people don't but them because they're ridiculously expensive and they still don't sound as good as a comparably priced "standard" system. You pay so much more for 5 amps this way and you lose so much in return.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not actually a fallacy. While the restatements are not binding law, they are restatements because they aim to restate the legal principles held by the majority or plurality of courts and legal scholars. Therefore, you can reasonably conclude that the ideas expressed will be prevailing legal principles of the day.
It seems that ever since going to law school, all I see on Slashdot is people incorrectly claiming knowledge of the law. The parent is a good example.
The Second Restatement of Torts, Section 402A Special liability of seller of product for physical harm to user or consumer, states:
1)A seller of a product in a defective condition is liable if
a) the seller's business is to sell that product, and
b) it is expected to and does reach the consumer without modifications
2) Section 1 applies even though
a) the seller has exercised all reasonable care, and
b) the sure or consumer did not enter any contract with the seller.
This results in a situation of strict liability.
There is also an implied warranty of merchantability, as seen in Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (NJ 1960, 671).
Further, this is not about to go away in the near future as the draft of the third restatement includes clause (see the section on products liability).
"The general gist is correct, but "innocent until proven guilty" is a principle that applies to criminal matters, not civil matters."
That's patently false. Sometimes, the burden of proof is with the defendant because of the nature of the case. For example, in cases of joint liability (for example, where 2 people are shooting wildly in the woods and a third person is shot, and neither of the 2 people actually know which one killed the 3rd person), then the 2 people must prove that they didn't kill the 3rd person in order to not be held personally liable. This only arises after it has been shown that they were jointly liable, though.
Another example is res ipsa loquitor. This means that the thing that happened is evidence of negligence unto itself. Usually, the plaintiff is not in a position to be able to prove what exactly happened to him, but the certain thing that happened to him could only have happened through negligence of the defendant.
In all of these cases, you still need to hale someone into court and show that they are negligent and then they may have to prove otherwise, but that's not assuming that they aren't innocent until proven guilty.
It isn't true that both parties have to have the ability to modify the contract to their satisfaction (I'm in law school and I've taken contracts... ). EULAs are adhesion contracts, which force the accepting party to the terms of the offering party. From Obstetrics & Gynecologists Ltd. v. Pepper (693 P.2d 1259) 'An adhesion contract need not be unenforceable if it falls within reasonable expectations of the weaker or "adhering" party and is not unduly oppressive. However, courts will not enforce against an adhering party a provision limiting the duties or abilities of the stronger party absent plain and clear notification of the terms and an understanding consent.' So, in the end, you are right that this won't be enforced, but for the wrong reason.
biscuits
You're not completely correct. Trespass (to land) is different from trespass to chattels. Trespass does not require that property be marked. Trespass to chattels has, in the past, required proof of damages while trespass to land is, in itself, a tort that guarantees victory simply because you trespassed (Dougherty v Stepp 18 N.C. 371). So at the very least you would be entitled to monetary damages in the case of any trespass whatsoever. The government may mark their machines, but it is a tort either way. You may be talking about criminal proceedings, in which case you right.
There was a case called Intel Corp v Hamidi 71 P.3d 296 (Cal. 2003) in which it was ruled that user using another person's network, if it was hooked up to the internet, was not trespass to chattels. This decision may be modifying that one somewhat. But in that case, it was made clear that trespass does not apply to the internet, only trespass to chattels.
Anecdotal (and unsubstantiated) evidence about the quality of the service in not is a reasonable comparison of the two formats. You should know that. There could be any number of factors contributing to the state of affairs (should they be true) that exist in India including marketing and the actual infrastructure that has been built for each format. In the US, Verizon is often credited with having the best customer loyalty (see this) and reception - so does that mean that somehow CDMA is a better and more mature technology with less vendor lock-in in the US, but in India GSM is a better and more mature technology with less vendor lock-in?
Technically you are congratulating him for doing what he is paid to do - no more. I mean, it's an interesting story, but I don't know if he deserves congratulations because he didn't chose to not green-light it.
Maybe the parent was being facetious, but I can't tell.
grammatical errors like dangling prepositions?
I totally agree with you, but just for argument's sake... Dell doesn't really do an awful lot of innovating either. They resell almost everything they sell and don't do an awful lot of r&d by themselves, but Dell has a market cap > $100 billion, and hpq is not quite $60 billion... so it just goes to show that innovation does not a successful company make. They seem to be competing on two different fronts against the juggernauts in each industry - IBM in innovation and high end servers, and Dell in lower-end resale of conumer and entry-level business products, and are having an identity crises, so they're losing in both segments.
There are certainly some projects that are like the one that you mentioned. But the continued prevelance of "if doesn't work on anything but IE, that's probably good enough" extends beyond the limited circumstance that you've listed. I personally worked for a large bioinformatics website where the IT staff actually used mozilla themselves, but programmed for IE just because they wanted this [crappy] dynamic menu system that was ActiveX. I think that's the sort of lazy developer the gp was talking about.
I eventually rewrote the whole thing b/c I refused to use IE even for testing.
Wow, you've backed up your original point really well with that asinine comment.
true, but sgml doesn't require delimiters. You can make it whatever you want.
Samsung had an HDTV plasma TV that wasn't available to purchase yet - it was 102". No bars or anything. There was a crows of 30 people around that TV every time I passed by.
Woah... you're pretty angry. Do you rewrite that sermon every time - complete with the bold tags and everything - or is it just a copy-and-paste affair?
Plus, US policies don't make China "more powerful by the minute." I think has a lot to do with Chinese policies. Can you give them a little credit?
What's the reasoning behind that?
And then China will steal your girlfriend. They'll steal all your jokes, and even your signature moves in bed. And they'll charge you when she wants to go out for a coffee two years later, just to talk about old times.
you're assuming I'm not running or jogging on a treadmill. Treadmills undermine the entire flash-based market.
The article said that one of the major reasons people don't like e-mail is that there is no immediate assurance that the message has arrived at its destination. Does SMS (or IM, for that matter) have any guarantee?
The article makes sense, though. SMS and IM are attractive in that you don't have to express every thought on the subject at once, but you can at least have some conversational simulation with these.
I'd use SMS, but I refuse on principle to pay 10 cents for each message I sent.
The French do have the stereotype about being rude to tourists - especially Parisians. It has nothing to do with recent history. I'm a left-winger, for the record.
They're definitely not patentable. Patents are for implementations - that's why all (most?) patents start with "A method for"... so unless there's only one way of doing tabbed browsing, it's not at all patentable. However, if MS copies Firefox in IE, then it just makes IE better and everyone wins. Same way whenever MS improves word and OpenOffice copies it, everyone wins. IT's competition. MS has shown they're not really inovating in the browser market - they're playing catch up (poorly at that).
The parent was funny... but think It's hardly fair to call the definitions of 9 words "informative". That's out of line.
Hoestly, what do you expect the CEO of Microsoft to do in the face of open source competion? He's not paid the big bucks to sit down and say "Well, I guess Linux has us beat... it was a good run while it lasted." He's paid to at least make it seems like MS has the better product, so he commissions studies that help his point and cites the useful points from those studies. You can't beat open-source software by it's nature. He would not be the CEO of MS if he said "Although certain installations may be cheaper running Windows, the vast majority should run Linux if they are interested in security and savings."
I don't understand why people get their panties in a bunch about this.
I mean:
Just like cell phones are lossless? There will still be interference, missed packets etc. You can't say that just because it's digital, all the problems will gone. Furthermore, the wireless-ness of the speakers has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You are just talking about using a digitial, rather than analog technology to send audio information over to the speakers and then have them DAC and amplify it. Bang and Oluffson already does something like this (with wired technology), but people don't but them because they're ridiculously expensive and they still don't sound as good as a comparably priced "standard" system. You pay so much more for 5 amps this way and you lose so much in return.
Just like cell phones are lossless? There will still be is etc. You can't say that just because it's dignterference, missed packetital, all the problems will gone. Furthermore, the wireless-ness of the speakers has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You are just talking about using a digitial, rather than analog technology to send audio information over to the speakers and then have them DAC and amplify it. Bang and Oluffson already does something like this (with wired technology), but people don't but them because they're ridiculously expensive and they still don't sound as good as a comparably priced "standard" system. You pay so much more for 5 amps this way and you lose so much in return.