And if you're unlucky, you may for a few years see fast crackdowns on all challengers of the political establishment for various minor and unimportant crimes (which will later conveniently preclude them from running for public office), until the day you stop seeing a lot of unapproved challengers to the political establishment.
I always assumed this was the reason for the HIPAA rule that allows law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access anyone's health records (and which AFAIK has not been challenged in the courts). Leaking a political candidate's health history can be just as damaging as any other info.
Now that you've won spectacularly, is it possible to pursue those damages?
NO. The case is over and the plaintiff won. He forfeited his claim for "derived profits" damages, possibly amounting to many thousands of dollars. In other words, he committed legal malpractice against himself. The guy should have looked harder for a lawyer willing to take the case, since attorney fees would have also been awarded in addition to the extra damages.
Would the court have enjoined distribution of the New York Times if it had published the info? Not likely. See NYT v. US, 403 US 713 ("Pentagon Papers" case). Wikileaks has a good appeal to the 9th Circuit, and is represented by California legal counsel. Watch the sparks fly.
--as my Usenet.sig used to say. I Am A Lawyer And A Former Software Developer. Why Slashdot chose to publish this rant from a legally uneducated pro-per is beyond me. But there are some valid points:
Yes, writing laws is kind of like developing software. With a few exceptions:
There are fewer lawyers than ever in Congress and other legislative (lawmaking) bodies. There is even a post in this topic -- at present it is moderated Insightful!!?! -- that opines that lawyers should not be legislators. C'mon people, would you want users administering your firewall or coding your apps? The bad thing about there being few lawyers in the legislature is obvious. You wind up with badly drafted laws. OK, sometimes lawyers write laws that benefit the economic interests of lawyers, but I respectfully submit that, on balance, having lots of badly drafted laws is worse.
There is no development life cycle as such. Legislators get ink by passing laws, not repealing them. Bad laws tend to stay on the books like so many big, wet, farts. Same for useless or obsolete government agencies. I wish someone would count the sizeof(bytes in the federal and state statute books) and graph the progression of this number over time. There is no formal iterative process to review recently passed laws to see if they are achieving their intended effects.
Most people (especially the media, the legislature, and the electorate) buy into the notion that passing a law will actually solve the perceived social problem the law was designed to address. My state's legislature (California's) passes 700 silly laws each and every year.
There are, of course, endemic political factors such as the forever-war among proponents of liberal / conservative/authoritarian / libertarian ideologies; as well as special interest groups and their campaign contributions / lobbying expenditures.
P.S.: If you are a mega-successful technology CEO, you will get more bang for the buck sponsoring good candidates (ahem) for the legislature than expending money trying to influence or explain things to the dummies who are presently in office.
P.P.S.: Many seemingly irrational aspects of the law are that way for good and valid reasons, but often the reasons are difficult to explain to nonlawyers. You will just have to go to law school to find out.
As between lawyers, if the errant email had reached the opposing lawyer there are a number of attorney ethics rules, as well as court decisions, that basically say that the other lawyer must return any mis-transmitted documents and must not use the information. (Yeah surrre.) See Perlman, Untangling Ethics Theory From Attorney Conduct Rules: The Case of Inadvertent Disclosures, 13 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 767 (2005).
These types of court decisions would not, however, support a "prior restraint" such as a court order prohibiting the NYT from publishing the information, see, e.g., New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (5-to-3 ruling prohibiting prior restraint and allowing NYT to print the top-secret "Pentagon Papers").
If you drill down far enough into the candidates' web sites, you can read their views on families. Obama thinks more dads ought to be in their homes helping to raise their kids. Hillary thinks children should be raised by social workers. Don't believe me? Read it. If you love the DCFS, you'll love Hillary. She's still a radfem. The only time she's ever uttered the words "Dads" or "Fathers" is immediately following the word "deadbeat."
Over 600 posts and y'all are still debating whether the zoo was "negligent" or whether the tiger was "taunted." The plaintiffs don't have to prove "negligence." A keeper of a wild animal is strictly liable for damages caused by an escaping animal, without regard to fault. This is why the SF Zoo has hired PR people to dirty-up the victims by claiming the tiger was taunted, the victims were drunk, etc., hoping the media will unquestioningly repeat it, and that somebody who hears it repeated enough times will get on the jury. WHO CARES. As Gerry Spence likes to say in his arguments, "If the tiger gets away, the defendant must pay." IAAL.
Cal. Official Civil Jury Instruction 461
Strict Liability for Injury Caused by Wild Animal -- Essential Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant]'s [insert type of
animal] harmed [him/her] and that [name of defendant] is
responsible for that harm.
People who own wild animals are responsible for the harm that
these animals cause to others, no matter how carefully they
guard or restrain their animals.
To establish [his/her] claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of
the following:
1. That [name of defendant] owned a [insert type of animal];
2. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
3. That [name of defendant]'s [insert type of animal] was a
substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]'s harm.
Lions, tigers, bears, elephants, wolves, monkeys, and sharks have been
characterized as wild animals. (Rosenbloom v. Hanour Corp. (1998) 66
Cal.App.4th 1477, 1479, fn. 1 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 686].)
An owner of a wild animal is strictly liable to persons who are injured
by the animal: "In such instances the owner is an insurer against the
acts of the animal, to one who is injured without fault, and the
question of the owner's negligence is not in the case." (Opelt v. Al G.
Barnes Co. (1919) 41 Cal.App. 776, 779 [183 P. 241].)
"[I]f the animal which inflicted the injury is vicious and dangerous,
known to the defendant to be such, an allegation of negligence on the
part of defendant is unnecessary and the averment, if made, may be
treated as surplusage." (Baugh v. Beatty (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 786, 791
[205 P.2d 671].)
A wild animal, of a type to be known to have a vicious nature, is
presumed to be vicious. (Baugh, supra, 91 Cal.App.2d at p. 791.)
Accordingly, an instruction on the owner's knowledge of its ferocity is
unnecessary. (Id. at pp. 791-792.)
They'll never call me, the way that they call me 'Cause if they did, you know, they'd make me cry They might be talkin' baby about my bill (my bill, my bill) So good-bye India Not gonna miss it! Goodbye, now
Na na na na, hey India, goodbye Na na na na, na na na na, hey India, goodbye
They never hear you, that bill-collectin' Hindu When all those overdue bills are fallin' baby from the sky They're surely talkin' baby about my bill (my bill, my bill) So good-bye India Not gonna miss it! Goodbye, now
Na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
[fade in] Hey hey-ey, goodbye Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye [repeat many times and fade out]
If somebody is brain-dead enough not to recognize a scam when they see one, is such a person really going to go to Bob Williamson's site to see if the situation is listed there? Conversely, if someone is not brain-dead, do they really need a list of money-mule scams? Aren't they easily recognizable??
No, the point is that geeky kid ice cream personnel never shake the water off of the metal dipper. The water on the dipper then becomes ice on contact with the ice cream. If the scooperperson doesn't shake off the dipper, you will have to eat ice.
You couldn't even tell if you cross-referenced with credit card information. One mixed drink might cost the same as two beers or four sodas, so anyone looking to use that info wouldn't be able to prove that the individual who went to the bar actually drank.
I bet the America West pilot and co-pilot who received prison sentences for attempting to fly an Airbus while both were drunk wish they had paid cash for that infamous $142.28 bar tab.
First, build the ship so it far exceeds the data capacity and bandwidth of any other marine-based data center. Then give it an appropriate name... so that, next time there's a war, the enemy will have but one mission... (drumroll)
My kid wants a OLPC. But you can't just buy one. My kid isn't a good, African kid, she's a bad, American kid. So the units aren't available at Fry's or Toys'R'Us. There are maybe 4 or 5 of 'em on eBay. And if you want to buy from the manufacturer, not only is there no promised delivery date, but you actually are forced to buy two of 'em and donate one of 'em to good, African kids.
So I think I will get a used WinMe laptop, port Linux onto it, and give it to her until the supply of eBay OLPCs improves.
Oh, and another get-this: There are, intentionally, no support or service facilities for bad, American kids.
It will fail in the same way as Google Answers or Orkut. Keep limiting access to invited friends, and by the time Google decides to open up participation to the public, the site will have already become irrelevant.
So the electric co. will buy the electricity in your car battery (at wholesale prices). Then when it doesn't need the power anyore, it recharges your battery (for which you are billed retail). Do this several dozen times a day and watch your bill skyrocket.
IAAL. The student whose Dad has more money than God is the perfect target. Dad will cave in for any amount of money to keep Thurston Howell VI from having a public litigation record.
I want a model with 9 or 12 or 15 nanotubes, with the number of nanotubes prominently inscribed on the front of the unit. Something you could hold in your hand, with an earphone, something you could take to the ballgame.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you're unlucky, you may for a few years see fast crackdowns on all challengers of the political establishment for various minor and unimportant crimes (which will later conveniently preclude them from running for public office), until the day you stop seeing a lot of unapproved challengers to the political establishment.
I always assumed this was the reason for the HIPAA rule that allows law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access anyone's health records (and which AFAIK has not been challenged in the courts). Leaking a political candidate's health history can be just as damaging as any other info.
If you don't know the difference between a jury and an appellate court, please don't post court-related articles to /.
Now that you've won spectacularly, is it possible to pursue those damages?
NO. The case is over and the plaintiff won. He forfeited his claim for "derived profits" damages, possibly amounting to many thousands of dollars. In other words, he committed legal malpractice against himself. The guy should have looked harder for a lawyer willing to take the case, since attorney fees would have also been awarded in addition to the extra damages.
Would the court have enjoined distribution of the New York Times if it had published the info? Not likely. See NYT v. US, 403 US 713 ("Pentagon Papers" case). Wikileaks has a good appeal to the 9th Circuit, and is represented by California legal counsel. Watch the sparks fly.
Maybe somebody will invent a benevolent virus for multifunction printers that will enable them to actually print envelopes.
Yes, writing laws is kind of like developing software. With a few exceptions:
There are fewer lawyers than ever in Congress and other legislative (lawmaking) bodies. There is even a post in this topic -- at present it is moderated Insightful!!?! -- that opines that lawyers should not be legislators. C'mon people, would you want users administering your firewall or coding your apps? The bad thing about there being few lawyers in the legislature is obvious. You wind up with badly drafted laws. OK, sometimes lawyers write laws that benefit the economic interests of lawyers, but I respectfully submit that, on balance, having lots of badly drafted laws is worse.
There is no development life cycle as such. Legislators get ink by passing laws, not repealing them. Bad laws tend to stay on the books like so many big, wet, farts. Same for useless or obsolete government agencies. I wish someone would count the sizeof(bytes in the federal and state statute books) and graph the progression of this number over time. There is no formal iterative process to review recently passed laws to see if they are achieving their intended effects.
Most people (especially the media, the legislature, and the electorate) buy into the notion that passing a law will actually solve the perceived social problem the law was designed to address. My state's legislature (California's) passes 700 silly laws each and every year.
There are, of course, endemic political factors such as the forever-war among proponents of liberal / conservative /authoritarian / libertarian ideologies; as well as special interest groups and their campaign contributions / lobbying expenditures.
P.S.: If you are a mega-successful technology CEO, you will get more bang for the buck sponsoring good candidates (ahem) for the legislature than expending money trying to influence or explain things to the dummies who are presently in office.
P.P.S.: Many seemingly irrational aspects of the law are that way for good and valid reasons, but often the reasons are difficult to explain to nonlawyers. You will just have to go to law school to find out.
No fair. You stole my TOS.
These types of court decisions would not, however, support a "prior restraint" such as a court order prohibiting the NYT from publishing the information, see, e.g., New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (5-to-3 ruling prohibiting prior restraint and allowing NYT to print the top-secret "Pentagon Papers").
If you drill down far enough into the candidates' web sites, you can read their views on families. Obama thinks more dads ought to be in their homes helping to raise their kids. Hillary thinks children should be raised by social workers. Don't believe me? Read it. If you love the DCFS, you'll love Hillary. She's still a radfem. The only time she's ever uttered the words "Dads" or "Fathers" is immediately following the word "deadbeat."
Lions, tigers, bears, elephants, wolves, monkeys, and sharks have been characterized as wild animals. (Rosenbloom v. Hanour Corp. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1479, fn. 1 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 686].)
An owner of a wild animal is strictly liable to persons who are injured by the animal: "In such instances the owner is an insurer against the acts of the animal, to one who is injured without fault, and the question of the owner's negligence is not in the case." (Opelt v. Al G. Barnes Co. (1919) 41 Cal.App. 776, 779 [183 P. 241].)
"[I]f the animal which inflicted the injury is vicious and dangerous, known to the defendant to be such, an allegation of negligence on the part of defendant is unnecessary and the averment, if made, may be treated as surplusage." (Baugh v. Beatty (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 786, 791 [205 P.2d 671].)
A wild animal, of a type to be known to have a vicious nature, is presumed to be vicious. (Baugh, supra, 91 Cal.App.2d at p. 791.) Accordingly, an instruction on the owner's knowledge of its ferocity is unnecessary. (Id. at pp. 791-792.)
It's:
Na na na na, na na na na, hey India, goodbye
They'll never call me, the way that they call me
'Cause if they did, you know, they'd make me cry
They might be talkin' baby about my bill (my bill, my bill)
So good-bye India
Not gonna miss it! Goodbye, now
Na na na na, hey India, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey India, goodbye
They never hear you, that bill-collectin' Hindu
When all those overdue bills are fallin' baby from the sky
They're surely talkin' baby about my bill (my bill, my bill)
So good-bye India
Not gonna miss it! Goodbye, now
Na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
[fade in]
Hey hey-ey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
[repeat many times and fade out]
If somebody is brain-dead enough not to recognize a scam when they see one, is such a person really going to go to Bob Williamson's site to see if the situation is listed there? Conversely, if someone is not brain-dead, do they really need a list of money-mule scams? Aren't they easily recognizable??
Even when you've got it, now figure out how you're going to get it back down to the ground.
I would tie a few extra rocks onto the balloon string.
No, the point is that geeky kid ice cream personnel never shake the water off of the metal dipper. The water on the dipper then becomes ice on contact with the ice cream. If the scooperperson doesn't shake off the dipper, you will have to eat ice.
You couldn't even tell if you cross-referenced with credit card information. One mixed drink might cost the same as two beers or four sodas, so anyone looking to use that info wouldn't be able to prove that the individual who went to the bar actually drank.
I bet the America West pilot and co-pilot who received prison sentences for attempting to fly an Airbus while both were drunk wish they had paid cash for that infamous $142.28 bar tab.
...to sink the Benchmark.
My kid wants a OLPC. But you can't just buy one. My kid isn't a good, African kid, she's a bad, American kid. So the units aren't available at Fry's or Toys'R'Us. There are maybe 4 or 5 of 'em on eBay. And if you want to buy from the manufacturer, not only is there no promised delivery date, but you actually are forced to buy two of 'em and donate one of 'em to good, African kids.
So I think I will get a used WinMe laptop, port Linux onto it, and give it to her until the supply of eBay OLPCs improves.
Oh, and another get-this: There are, intentionally, no support or service facilities for bad, American kids.
It will fail in the same way as Google Answers or Orkut. Keep limiting access to invited friends, and by the time Google decides to open up participation to the public, the site will have already become irrelevant.
Do they have a different version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Oregon under which "sur-replies" to motions are permitted?
So the electric co. will buy the electricity in your car battery (at wholesale prices). Then when it doesn't need the power anyore, it recharges your battery (for which you are billed retail). Do this several dozen times a day and watch your bill skyrocket.
It must really hurt to excrete a nanotube. Maybe some nanoprunes would help.
I'm still waiting for the gizmo that can scan my ass with a laser and spit out a pair of perfectly fitting pants.
IAAL. The student whose Dad has more money than God is the perfect target. Dad will cave in for any amount of money to keep Thurston Howell VI from having a public litigation record.
I want a model with 9 or 12 or 15 nanotubes, with the number of nanotubes prominently inscribed on the front of the unit. Something you could hold in your hand, with an earphone, something you could take to the ballgame.
Never heard of "Ect". Is there a Windows version?