This big law firm smells dollars, and lots of them.
Right.
If they can squeeze any kind of settlement out of Zuck, it might be worth it just for their cut of the cash.
Which is the second scenario I outlined.
They're in it for a big win, and for no other reason.
Of course.
This supposed email is what they'll hinge the whole case on.
Well, no, the cashed check and the written contract are probably better, but the emails are corroborating evidence. And we can rest assured they spent a few dollars to have those e-mails checked out before they took the case, to avoid the situation where it was later pointed out that those e-mails were composed on Word by somebody who doesn't really understand SMTP.
If the case is fraudulent and meritless they only stand to lose big-time. You know Facebook is going to have an army of lawyers on this, and it's not worth their investment to be laughed out of court. So, being that they want to gain money, not lose it, they're going to have established some internal level of comfort with the case. You're right, it's an odds game, but they're not going to take 1000:1 odds.
It's good to be skeptical. I had my doubts last summer, despite feeling a bit of sympathy for David vs. that peckerhead Goliath.
But now a big LA law firm has stood up and said, "this is worth our time." I doubt Ceglia can afford their rates without a proceeds-sharing agreement. They wouldn't work on a case they felt had no merits, and they wouldn't take on a case like this without doing some diligence.
The only situation I see where the case has no merit is if they feel Facebook is rich enough to get some shake-down money out of. But I really doubt that at this point.
the benefit is that you are entitled to a trial by jury in the event that you are accused of a crime
But I don't want a trial by jury of 12 nincompoops who are ignorant of the subject matter and my personal character. This is the result of the compulsory system (and an overabundance of laws), and a complete perversion of the common law tradition of a 'jury by one's peers'.
Rest assured there are plenty of geek chicks on this planet. Do you think they would rather wind up with one of those Wally World men or a fellow geek like yourself?
Geeks shouldn't reproduce with geek chicks. Spread the genes around a bit. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
So you'd have no problem being put on trial with no jury? I'm sure those individuals volunteering for jury duty wouldn't be biased at all.
I live in a place where nearly the entire government is run by volunteers, and they may have their own biases, but they operate in a typically fair manner.
DS9 FTW, mainly because it didn't rely on made-up-on-the-spot fake science or holodeck claptrap to drive/resolve the storylines.
All of Star Trek relies on fake, made-up science. Warp drive, travelling through worm holes populated by gods?
The important aspect of good Trek is that it explores/confronts human/societal problems/issues. If that's done as a murder-mystery in a holodeck setting or a non-space set in a hut on a planet, that's not really a failing. Sci-Fi tricks its readers/viewers into dealing with these matters with the lure of science.
Slavery is when work is stolen from a person for no pay.
Slaves were paid with room and board. In my State, our Constitution specifies that jurors be "fully compensated for their time, travel, and attendance." At most, they pay a fraction of IRS mileage.
Jury duty is a duty. A duty is an obligation we owe to other people.
This is a tautology. Tell me, how was this obligation created?
If a person doesn't perform their duty, then it is they who are stealing from other people.
This is a statement of a so-called 'positive right'. The USA was founded on the concept of negative reciprocity, explicitly rejecting any 'positive rights' (which were features of the Roosevelt Progressive Era of socialism).
You say that until you're false accused of a crime. Then you'll pray that enough intelligent people willingly perform their civic duty of serving on a jury.
That's how it's supposed to be. In reality, they disqualify anybody who might be qualified so that the jurors can be easily swayed. Any personal knowledge of the matter or the parties get one a pass (the notion of 'peers' has been completely corrupted) . And they lie to the jury about their rights and duties. I was called for jury duty last year and had to agree to follow all of the judges orders. I told him if he were to give me an order that violated the Constitution or negated the jury's powers I couldn't do that. I was promptly dismissed.
So, the choice is to violate everybody's human rights or to fear, without evidence, that there wouldn't be enough people willing to sit on juries? The ends don't justify the means in a civil society. And, besides, it's only the sheer number of immoral laws that keeps the caseloads so high. There are so many retired people with nothing to do and plenty of people interested in civic action. My local government has far more volunteer members than paid members, and there's never an empty position. Don't underestimate the human spirit.
It isn't in keeping with the intent of the writers of the Constitution, but it's in keeping with the feedback and enforcement mechanisms incorporated in the Constitution.
desperately needs governments to invest in to get it going
Sorry, we're spending that money on oil wars, there's really none left for fusion. It's not like you can run a car on fusion energy, smart guy. Oh, wait.
Yeah, I'm almost 20 devices, 4 houses, and multiple VDSL/802.11 conversions away from the Internet connection. One of the VDSL lines is buried and goes over a ridge.
But, really, I'd give up any anonymity that provides for a cable or DSL line to the house - doing tech support for your neighborhood after an ice storm sucks.
That's OK, if they want our e-mails after 6 months, they only get to classify documents for 6 months. That trade would likely tip the scales to a net-benefit for liberty.
If there was nothing to stop them, i imagine some people would try to kill you just for disagreeing with them online...
There's nothing to stop them from doing it now. They may suffer retributive justice, but in a governmentless society they'd likely not survive [long beyond] such an attack anyway. If they're crazy enough to kill people over an online comment they're not going to be thinking so far ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
This big law firm smells dollars, and lots of them.
Right.
If they can squeeze any kind of settlement out of Zuck, it might be worth it just for their cut of the cash.
Which is the second scenario I outlined.
They're in it for a big win, and for no other reason.
Of course.
This supposed email is what they'll hinge the whole case on.
Well, no, the cashed check and the written contract are probably better, but the emails are corroborating evidence. And we can rest assured they spent a few dollars to have those e-mails checked out before they took the case, to avoid the situation where it was later pointed out that those e-mails were composed on Word by somebody who doesn't really understand SMTP.
If the case is fraudulent and meritless they only stand to lose big-time. You know Facebook is going to have an army of lawyers on this, and it's not worth their investment to be laughed out of court. So, being that they want to gain money, not lose it, they're going to have established some internal level of comfort with the case. You're right, it's an odds game, but they're not going to take 1000:1 odds.
Where's the SEC when you need them?
Taking marching orders from Goldman?
I have serious doubts to any validity of this.
It's good to be skeptical. I had my doubts last summer, despite feeling a bit of sympathy for David vs. that peckerhead Goliath.
But now a big LA law firm has stood up and said, "this is worth our time." I doubt Ceglia can afford their rates without a proceeds-sharing agreement. They wouldn't work on a case they felt had no merits, and they wouldn't take on a case like this without doing some diligence.
The only situation I see where the case has no merit is if they feel Facebook is rich enough to get some shake-down money out of. But I really doubt that at this point.
As a first pass, you could run them through SpamAssassin. It's very good at pointing out faked SMTP headers.
That could only serve to disprove, not prove, of course.
See why signed coms are important?
The cashed check was produced last summer. Here's an older story.
the benefit is that you are entitled to a trial by jury in the event that you are accused of a crime
But I don't want a trial by jury of 12 nincompoops who are ignorant of the subject matter and my personal character. This is the result of the compulsory system (and an overabundance of laws), and a complete perversion of the common law tradition of a 'jury by one's peers'.
Agreed except for this part:
Rest assured there are plenty of geek chicks on this planet. Do you think they would rather wind up with one of those Wally World men or a fellow geek like yourself?
Geeks shouldn't reproduce with geek chicks. Spread the genes around a bit. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
Obviously, Google wants this to be pronounced as "Speedy" but I can easily see this becoming "Spoddy."
Spoddy? How about "Spidey"? Our favorite web-slinging superhero.
So you'd have no problem being put on trial with no jury? I'm sure those individuals volunteering for jury duty wouldn't be biased at all.
I live in a place where nearly the entire government is run by volunteers, and they may have their own biases, but they operate in a typically fair manner.
DS9 FTW, mainly because it didn't rely on made-up-on-the-spot fake science or holodeck claptrap to drive/resolve the storylines.
All of Star Trek relies on fake, made-up science. Warp drive, travelling through worm holes populated by gods?
The important aspect of good Trek is that it explores/confronts human/societal problems/issues. If that's done as a murder-mystery in a holodeck setting or a non-space set in a hut on a planet, that's not really a failing. Sci-Fi tricks its readers/viewers into dealing with these matters with the lure of science.
the military is one of the ONLY things our federal government is actually constitutionally allowed to spend money on
For the Navy (I'd include Air Force today), yes, but *not* for a standing Army.
if you flash a gun at me like you intend to do me harm, you just committed a crime... doesn't matter who I am.
Right, it only matters who I am. If I work for the government, I can do that with impunity.
:) You win.
Roads?
Slavery is when work is stolen from a person for no pay.
Slaves were paid with room and board. In my State, our Constitution specifies that jurors be "fully compensated for their time, travel, and attendance." At most, they pay a fraction of IRS mileage.
Jury duty is a duty. A duty is an obligation we owe to other people.
This is a tautology. Tell me, how was this obligation created?
If a person doesn't perform their duty, then it is they who are stealing from other people.
This is a statement of a so-called 'positive right'. The USA was founded on the concept of negative reciprocity, explicitly rejecting any 'positive rights' (which were features of the Roosevelt Progressive Era of socialism).
You say that until you're false accused of a crime. Then you'll pray that enough intelligent people willingly perform their civic duty of serving on a jury.
That's how it's supposed to be. In reality, they disqualify anybody who might be qualified so that the jurors can be easily swayed. Any personal knowledge of the matter or the parties get one a pass (the notion of 'peers' has been completely corrupted) . And they lie to the jury about their rights and duties. I was called for jury duty last year and had to agree to follow all of the judges orders. I told him if he were to give me an order that violated the Constitution or negated the jury's powers I couldn't do that. I was promptly dismissed.
So, the choice is to violate everybody's human rights or to fear, without evidence, that there wouldn't be enough people willing to sit on juries? The ends don't justify the means in a civil society. And, besides, it's only the sheer number of immoral laws that keeps the caseloads so high. There are so many retired people with nothing to do and plenty of people interested in civic action. My local government has far more volunteer members than paid members, and there's never an empty position. Don't underestimate the human spirit.
It isn't. That's the problem as much as anything.
It isn't in keeping with the intent of the writers of the Constitution, but it's in keeping with the feedback and enforcement mechanisms incorporated in the Constitution.
It was a good try. Didn't work. Rewrite-required.
desperately needs governments to invest in to get it going
Sorry, we're spending that money on oil wars, there's really none left for fusion. It's not like you can run a car on fusion energy, smart guy. Oh, wait.
Hey, that doesn't promote any pc political agendas.
No one's stopping you from moving to the PRC.
Right, our government violates its own Constitution, so I should get the hell out. Nice to see the Tories are still alive and well in the US.
Yeah, I'm almost 20 devices, 4 houses, and multiple VDSL/802.11 conversions away from the Internet connection. One of the VDSL lines is buried and goes over a ridge.
But, really, I'd give up any anonymity that provides for a cable or DSL line to the house - doing tech support for your neighborhood after an ice storm sucks.
Yup, this is how you structure a merger that the regulators won't approve.
Nokian studded bicycle tires can't be beat for riding on ice.
Oh, no, reminds me of College!
I think the only business they'll have left is their rubber products
The companies split in '88. I did have some Nokia tires at one point, but the next set were Nokians (the WR series is still a great buy).
That's OK, if they want our e-mails after 6 months, they only get to classify documents for 6 months. That trade would likely tip the scales to a net-benefit for liberty.
If there was nothing to stop them, i imagine some people would try to kill you just for disagreeing with them online...
There's nothing to stop them from doing it now. They may suffer retributive justice, but in a governmentless society they'd likely not survive [long beyond] such an attack anyway. If they're crazy enough to kill people over an online comment they're not going to be thinking so far ahead.
Oh, no I did I just disagree with you? ;)
Good luck, boys, my cable modem is two miles from the house.