Yes, your insight is that rape sentences are too mild.
For one thing, "Mitnick would have been better off raping somebody" callously ignores that rape also produces a rape victim.
Also, the severity of Mitnick's sentence has to be understood in light of his multiple past convictions for very similar offenses, back to a juvenile bust. The earlier sentences were light. Clearly his learning curve is not one of the best.
Mitnick is a garden-variety serial felon. If anything his sentence was quite light, especially from the perspective of his victims. He paid what, $4100 in restitution? And he bloody well can "still make a living" doing something else. Preferably something honest.
Rather than spending money on tracking down and throwing a bunch of clueless hackers in jail
It's the "rather than" that blows me away. It's not just that we have no way of knowing who was behind the crime, clueless or not, but that you somehow think there aren't the resources to go after everyone responsible.
Absent some sort of immunity, the contractor is civilly liable for consequential losses to both the government and the individuals. They appear quite aware of this judging from their remedial steps, and they have plenty on the line without the government butting in with "penalties." At worst the company was negligent -- and we don't know that, either. There is not a thing in the articles suggesting TriWest was at fault. As it now stands they may be a mere victim.
By my count thus far you're comment is riding atop three shaky assumptions. You're lucky there's no fine for ill-considered speculation.
The submitter writes: "There's supposed to be a press conference on Friday in Hollywood."
Now, do we need to know anything else? Hollywood?
The Raelians are interesting... at least they seem like happy people. One called in to the NPR program on the story this evening. Their principles of free love and such probably mesh quite nicely with the aspirations of their founder Rael. I liked the bit in his alien abduction story about being attended to by a half-dozen "voluptuous robots." Pity he didn't have a camera. Or maybe it didn't translate right.
I'd rather the Raelian be obsessed with sex and clones than, say, guns and armageddon.
I shudder to even contemplate it, but unless their revenue stream is cut off, this is going to continue. And that means educating users to NOT FUCKING BUY ANYTHING SOLD THROUGH SPAM. Until then, well...
Yes, but... the crowd that's buying herbal Viagra is a tough one to reason with by definition. Then there are the "get rich quick" suckers -- just try explaining basic math to them.
There's an old saying that some people will buy anything. Spamming is about locating them. The rest of us get caught in the overspray.
Re:He waived his rights.....
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 2
Yes, I saw the "lost chapter" somewhere. The problem is that Mitnick is so immature and self-serving that whatever he writes has weakened credibility. This doesn't mean he wasn't wronged, or that he was.
The consensus of what I've read, which has been a fair amount, is what you say, that he's a good social engineer (con man or, in a white hat, Jim Rockford), phone phreak, and very limited hacker.
I've rechecked and a key element causing delay was problems in discovery (turning over evidence) because the gov't refused to provide Mitnick files he had encrypted unless he provided passwords. Presumably some of the data was incriminating, so Mitnick was stuck with a dilemma. Other weirdnesses appear to have resulted from the court being unfamiliar with what a "computer" is. I am dissatisfied with the explanations I've seen, and really want some sort of breakdown of that 4 1/2 years -- without whiny Mitnick commentary in it. I guess I could work it out myself, but isn't there just a button I can press?:)
Re:DETAILS on his pretrial detention??
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 2
That's the thing -- almost everything I've seen online is either overtly pro-Mitnick, or press accounts that are difficult to verify. Very frustrating.
Mitnick himself appears not to "get it" which is his business, but makes anything he says about everything harder to take at face value. In short -- I don't trust him. But the length of the detention is very disturbing, and I would love to see an attempted justification for it, and perhaps apportionment of blame for the delays.
Whoops! Lost me in this last sentence... when your first words were "I got busted..." In Soviet America, they police you....
Seriously, what d'you think was your turning point? Getting busted, apparently not, because you were still resentful. I doubt kiddie prison would have helped either way to get scared straight or anything; rather you internalized these values at some point. So when did you decide ripping off Apu wasn't OK, even if he was overcharging you for day-old donuts?
DETAILS on his pretrial detention??
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 5, Informative
IIRC Mitnick was held in pretrial detention for ~4 1/2 years, then released on a plea and time served. I spent a while some time ago trying to understand how this happened.
Now, his initially being in detention w/o bail after an extended run as a federal fugitive should not surprise anyone. If you fled you pretty much demonstrated that you are a flight risk.
Also, that we was held longer that the 100-day Speedy Trial Act span is unsurprising because of the numerous "tolling provisions" that can stretch out that time. I think most prosecutions are affected by these.
Finally, that he waived Speedy Trial Act protection is not uncommon and was partly to his benefit, as it gave the defense more time to prepare for trial. In other words, he didn't waive to be nice to the gov't, although he was under considerable pressure to do so.
All this I understand except -- how did it all add up for 4 1/2 years? I have read a ton of criminal cases and never heard of anything like it. I'm not interested in hearing dark conspiracy theories. I suspect it was a failure of the system more than prosecutorial manipulation, and don't want to see it happen again. Was Mitnick partly responsible?
BTW, conditions in pretrial detention may have been better -- prisoners there, being pretrial, have incentive to play nice (I visited one of these places, and it was much nicer than even federal prison) -- and the 4 1/2 years may not have been excessive for his second offense, his flight, and other aggravating factors. But I don't think this is the right way to be doing things -- it would have been lovely if he proved to be innocent.
The deal was that the gov't wouldn't return his equipment unless he first allowed them to decrypt its contents. This sounds draconian but it consistent with the rule they won't return evidence that may be or contain contraband. There could be more credit card #'s, security hacking info, etc. So he was free to keep his passwords, but not to get his stuff back if he wouldn't allow it to be searched, I would suppose because some of the encrypted info is incriminating for even more offenses. It's a bed of his own making, and not a rule written for Mitnick alone.
As for keeping his hands off computers, it was an odd condition, but bear in mind this was his second conviction -- he wasn't learning.
Re:Free Kevin....
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You have *significantly* improved my stereotyped impression of Georgia state troopers.:)
Note that you benefitted from prosecutorial discretion. Mitnick did not, I think largely because he was such as asshole and ticked off the wrong people. If you'd had his kind of publicity you'd probably still be breaking rocks in Georgia.
The (apocryphal) tale I remember was of a woman who was zipping through Georgia late at 90 MPH to be stopped by a classic Cool Hand Luke trooper with an attitude. He drawled, "Lady, no one drives that fast in Georgia." She quipped, "Sherman did." And spent the night in jail.
No one else seems to have asked, so I'll give it a shot:
Is anyone else a little slow to associate meteorological information with tough security? I mean, what are they doing over there if they're worried about their department of volcanic activity?
Ironic that the "sensitive data" would be prove to be personnel records. As for minutes of meetings, again, I would like to know what top secret plans were discussed. Perhaps I'm paranoid, or I've seen too many of the 600 Godzilla movies.
My trick, when I think of it, is to throw a tarp over the car before the snow falls. Then the snow just peels off, and most importantly you don't get ice on the windshield.
As for the driveway, well, it is good cardiovascular exercise, like what those people spend all that money on tapes to do.
No, the DMCA is quite unusual for having a willfulness element, which goes to the defendant's knowledge of the law rather than guilty conduct. For all the criticism the DMCA has gotten, it oddly enough also contains the key to Elcomsoft's acquittal. From reading news reports, I suspect the jury wanted to acquit and focused on this provision to do it.
Staples is not relevant, it concerns whether the defendant knew the facts -- the "physical properties" of his gun -- not his awareness or ignorance of the law on such guns.
If you all think to 1990, Apple didn't have any 'i' products. I mean, the Mac II line was the top of the crop back then..... Nothing was named with an 'i' until 1998....
Politely, not so. The Macintosh IIci came out in 1989; I bought one for my work ($5000!). The "c" meant "compact," and the "i" maybe meant "intergrated video" (no card was required). The IIsi and IIvi followed soon thereafter. OK, this isn't the same as iSomething, but it did get the "i" out there for something new and cool in the stagnating Mac II line.
I think the names are mostly coincidence, but judging from the NYT article's highlight of the respect the co-founder voices for Apple's achievements, I think they're pleased to be thus associated. Apple made the "i" popular and kind of friendly. No, I don't think Apple should sue them.:)
I, Robot has a comma, infidel! (I only know because I checked it out today to reread after about 20 years.)
Point is that Apple had nothing to do with inspiring this company. Shameless apple plug.
The NYT article references Apple Computer twice prominently, including the co-founder who "describes iRobot's goal as 'doing for robots what Apple did for computers, making them available to anyone who wants to use one.'" Sounds like inspiration to me.
The similarly to iMac etc. may just be happy circumstance, because it was Apple that made the iThing famous and friendly. I think it's interesting, not litigation material. Also, because I owned one I must correct that the first Apple product with an "i" was the Macintosh IIci introduced in 1989, one year BiR (before iRobot). The "c" I believe meant compact, the "i" I don't know. The IIsi and IIvi followed soon after.
So, Janda, how much do you get for each unit sold of this New and Exciting Product? As Seen on TV?
I'm not picking on you -- heck I sent the article in. I was hesitant to include the brand name in the title -- I hate to be the stooge of the word-of-mouth they want -- but hey they dominate the field of goofy or potentially lethal toys.
The Roomba would give my wife's ("our") cat a stroke, no doubt about. Which is why I want one.;-)
Let's see $200 -- is that about $10 per dust bunny pelt?
BTW, both British and Australian accents are thought to be quite fetching here.
(Quoting myself.) Actually lots of foreign accents are considered attractive, unless they're too hard to understand, or German, or maybe Indian or Mexican... and so on. There's a classist thing in there, and then places like Autralia have been portrayed positively in movies, and we seem to have a whole pile of Australian actors (and a cool scifi show, Farscape). Americans are interested in foreigners, we're very isolated here. Ask one to find New Zealand on a map, however, forget it. And Canadians we are somehow blind to, though they are our #1 trading partner they are taken for granted, whic, uh, irritates many of them.
For accents, nowadays there is the homogenizing force of TV. That's the English I speak, and I even grew up in LA. I'm sure you see a bunch of shows in "American" whereas I don't see any in "Australian" (barely a hint of one in Farscape -- it was pretty startling listening to the talent interviewed in the DVD extras). Many people who have ethnic or regional accents retain them out of pride. A Southern accent, the only really strong one we have (Boston and Brooklyn come close) is generally pretty acceptable though sometimes looked down upon as uneducated hicksville.
On stereotypes, the Texans actually get on much better with Mexicans than the supposedly liberal Californians, even though the former has a border many many times as long. It's a completely different mentality, though no one is perfect.
On language, I think English does a pretty good job, the problem is that it borrows from so many other languages with different rules -- German, old anglo-saxon, French, misc. others. I feel bad teaching my 6 y.o. spelling and pronunciation and verb conjugation, because his logic just doesn't fit what we do. But thank goodness out nouns are genderless! In German the articles even change with the case of non -- passive, dative, active.... As for grammar, oddly enough a lot of our grammar rules were invented about a hundred years ago when someone decided we needed a grammar based on Latin, and many of the rules are bogus.
My wife pronounces "our" as something like "hour." I pronounce both like the letter R, and I like it that way dammit. My usual argument is that if your meaning is clear and you don't look stupid you're doing OK.
Inflammable is correct judging from its root "to set fire to". Flammable probably resulted from someone who thought they knew what they were doing, reasoned that "in" meant not (incorrect here) and flammable meant flame-able, so they dropped the "in." Flammable mostly appears on gas trucks and does save two letters.... but means inflammable.
inquire/enquire and insure/ensure are pretty much dead issues inn American English, settling on inquire and insure for insurance, ensure for "to make sure." American law for some reason uses insure to mean ensure, I don't know why' it also spells judgement as judgment. The origins of this little changes are often quite quaint -- a printer's error one day becomes THE RULE the next. As a lawyer and someone who has done a lot of editing, the language fascinates and repels me.:) I think it's a pretty good language and for better or worse it is becoming the international language. I suppose American English is the most commonly spoken? We have almost 300 million now. (And there are regional dialects here, also.)
BTW, both British and Australian accents are thought to be quite fetching here.
Lawyers have nothing to do with the problem; a secretary probably wrote the form letter.
Simply write back to Borland stating your dilemma and that so further action can be taken without documentation in writing. Be nice, be firm, enclose a copy of their letter and reference your disappointing telephone conversation. Send it certified with return receipt, keep the record, and likely for just a couple of bucks you'll never hear from them again.
Odds are you can just ignore them, but I can't quite recommend that you do so.:)
Obviously no responsible businessperson could do anything on their say-so. Treat this as an invoice from some company you never heard of, or an overcharge from a utility. Realistically it would cost far more to come after you than to pursue the matter (I like the notion someone here has of countersuing!). Unfortunate that they have a poor operating attitude, I'll make a note of it for the future.
Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't pirate software in the first place. You appear to be in the crossfire of unethical people retaliating against unethical people.:)
FWLIW (L = little) -- it's actually "courtS of appeal":)
And the stereotypes I'm more familiar with are that the Fourth is conservative (maybe that's what you mean by Neanderthal -- but less so than the "hang 'em high" Fifth); the DC tends to be political; and the 9th is unreliable. But these are just stereotypes. Because a given case is decided by 3 of 10-40 (or so) judges, the panel may be composed of more or less creative/ethical/intelligent/liberal judges. So there can be some surprises.
The Second is often called the most intellectual "mother circuit"; the Seventh is known for its intellect and Chicago School judges; and I can't think of any more profiles....
I wasn't kidding however about being forbidden from citing the 9th in my circuit; and if it comes to that something is terribly wrong. This says nothing of the skill or ability of the 9th Circuit, but instead the unworkability of such a populous and physically sprawling circuit. They have also had an alarmingly high reversal rate by the Supreme Court, including many unanimous votes and barbed commentary by the Justices. This is bad.
Well, see if you can glue 3 or 4 together as a mental stunt. Surely you have nothing better to do.:)
A patented trademark -- appears it could be something like a Swiss Army knife that is distinctive in its patented construction and operation. Maybe you could copyright it as a work of art? Or something like that... It gives me a headache.
Here's a weird and worrisome trademark case. I wrote to the note's author with the patented trademarked copyright Q; perhaps it will amuse him enough to write back. I'll let you know.
Does the fact that I'm married to a lawyer have anything to do with the fact that I haven't been summoned in over 8 years? Or, am I just lucky? Or, is this normal?
I think it was that nervous tic of yours.:)
That you haven't been summoned in over 8 years sounds like blind probability. I haven't been called in 5, though I did get a pre-questionnaire. Do they keep data on you somewhere? Did you move when you got married? Jurisdictions vary in how they stock and purge the juror pool, using voter registration, tax records and the like. Maybe if you call them you can get back in the queue. Of course, they'll also decide you're insane.:)
Yeah, I got your point about spousal contamination. I don't know jury practice but I do know lawyers worry about the influence of family members. They're looking for some hint of unfavorable bias of prejudice. Although juries have been studied extensively I get the sense a lot of what the lawyers do is superstition. But hey, if your superstitions win cases -- and aren't repugnant to the Constitution -- go for it.
Here is one discussion of philosophy culled from Google.
* So how is it being married to a lawyer? Do you think she argues too much? Or do you finds the sprinkles of Latin phrases (res ipsa loquitor!) sexy? My wife seems OK with it, but I do have to remember not to go for broke.:)
I've never served (called 3 times -- twice in Mass, but told I didn't have to come in) and think I would like to for the experience.
IANAL, however I do like reading decisions from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Why that particular circuit -- aside from you probably live in it? (For the uninitiated, the system has 11 numbered circuits plus the DC circuit and the federal circuit. The armed services have their own appeals court.)
The 9th is unique, covering -- well, as their site says: "The Ninth Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits and includes all federal courts in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands." That must be about 50 million people?
Maybe because it is so large the 9th is known for internal divisions that can lead to some chaotic and even contradictory precedent. I worked as a staff attorney in another circuit and the informal rule was never to cite to the 9th unless distancing ourselves from it. I know that sounds very parochial, but there has been criticism from other quarters as you likely know.
It's past time to break the 9th up into two or three circuits similar to the others -- it's literally that big! This would hopefully improve the administration of justice, but when and how this will happen I don't know. The circuit itself says everything is fine as it is. The current situation places an unnecessary strain on the people in the circuit, and it must be quite expensive on those occasions all the judges must meet in one place. Aside from those meetings, some judges of the circuit rarely see and faintly know other judges. In other circuits, the court hears all its cases in one or maybe two locations, which does help generate some collegiality.
Whatever. I think it's cool an IANAL is reading and enjoying the decisions.
The rules vary depending on where you are. I know of a number of lawyers who have served jury duty, including 3 federal judges -- 2 appeals court and the magistrate.
The magistrate was pretty funny when describing her experience. She said she looked forward to getting some insight, and declined to be foreperson because she wanted to observe. I think it was a medical malpractice case, and she said the jurors started saying something like, well, we don't think the doctor did anything wrong, but we should give the plaintiff some money anyway. She piped up politely that she was pretty sure they had to find negligence first (the verdict form must have indicated this -- do step A then B). Now she's probably looking at juries cockeyed.
That's an example BTW of prohibited jury nullification -- jurors ignoring the rules to do what they want, here probably figuring it was just some insurance company taking the hit. It's ugly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, your insight is that rape sentences are too mild.
For one thing, "Mitnick would have been better off raping somebody" callously ignores that rape also produces a rape victim.
Also, the severity of Mitnick's sentence has to be understood in light of his multiple past convictions for very similar offenses, back to a juvenile bust. The earlier sentences were light. Clearly his learning curve is not one of the best.
Mitnick is a garden-variety serial felon. If anything his sentence was quite light, especially from the perspective of his victims. He paid what, $4100 in restitution? And he bloody well can "still make a living" doing something else. Preferably something honest.
Rather than spending money on tracking down and throwing a bunch of clueless hackers in jail
It's the "rather than" that blows me away. It's not just that we have no way of knowing who was behind the crime, clueless or not, but that you somehow think there aren't the resources to go after everyone responsible.
Absent some sort of immunity, the contractor is civilly liable for consequential losses to both the government and the individuals. They appear quite aware of this judging from their remedial steps, and they have plenty on the line without the government butting in with "penalties." At worst the company was negligent -- and we don't know that, either. There is not a thing in the articles suggesting TriWest was at fault. As it now stands they may be a mere victim.
By my count thus far you're comment is riding atop three shaky assumptions. You're lucky there's no fine for ill-considered speculation.
The submitter writes: "There's supposed to be a press conference on Friday in Hollywood."
... at least they seem like happy people. One called in to the NPR program on the story this evening. Their principles of free love and such probably mesh quite nicely with the aspirations of their founder Rael. I liked the bit in his alien abduction story about being attended to by a half-dozen "voluptuous robots." Pity he didn't have a camera. Or maybe it didn't translate right.
Now, do we need to know anything else? Hollywood?
The Raelians are interesting
I'd rather the Raelian be obsessed with sex and clones than, say, guns and armageddon.
I shudder to even contemplate it, but unless their revenue stream is cut off, this is going to continue. And that means educating users to NOT FUCKING BUY ANYTHING SOLD THROUGH SPAM. Until then, well...
... the crowd that's buying herbal Viagra is a tough one to reason with by definition. Then there are the "get rich quick" suckers -- just try explaining basic math to them.
Yes, but
There's an old saying that some people will buy anything. Spamming is about locating them. The rest of us get caught in the overspray.
Yes, I saw the "lost chapter" somewhere. The problem is that Mitnick is so immature and self-serving that whatever he writes has weakened credibility. This doesn't mean he wasn't wronged, or that he was.
:)
The consensus of what I've read, which has been a fair amount, is what you say, that he's a good social engineer (con man or, in a white hat, Jim Rockford), phone phreak, and very limited hacker.
I've rechecked and a key element causing delay was problems in discovery (turning over evidence) because the gov't refused to provide Mitnick files he had encrypted unless he provided passwords. Presumably some of the data was incriminating, so Mitnick was stuck with a dilemma. Other weirdnesses appear to have resulted from the court being unfamiliar with what a "computer" is. I am dissatisfied with the explanations I've seen, and really want some sort of breakdown of that 4 1/2 years -- without whiny Mitnick commentary in it. I guess I could work it out myself, but isn't there just a button I can press?
That's the thing -- almost everything I've seen online is either overtly pro-Mitnick, or press accounts that are difficult to verify. Very frustrating.
Mitnick himself appears not to "get it" which is his business, but makes anything he says about everything harder to take at face value. In short -- I don't trust him. But the length of the detention is very disturbing, and I would love to see an attempted justification for it, and perhaps apportionment of blame for the delays.
Encryption may have been an important element.
And in the day we policed ourselves.
... when your first words were "I got busted..." In Soviet America, they police you....
Whoops! Lost me in this last sentence
Seriously, what d'you think was your turning point? Getting busted, apparently not, because you were still resentful. I doubt kiddie prison would have helped either way to get scared straight or anything; rather you internalized these values at some point. So when did you decide ripping off Apu wasn't OK, even if he was overcharging you for day-old donuts?
IIRC Mitnick was held in pretrial detention for ~4 1/2 years, then released on a plea and time served. I spent a while some time ago trying to understand how this happened.
Now, his initially being in detention w/o bail after an extended run as a federal fugitive should not surprise anyone. If you fled you pretty much demonstrated that you are a flight risk.
Also, that we was held longer that the 100-day Speedy Trial Act span is unsurprising because of the numerous "tolling provisions" that can stretch out that time. I think most prosecutions are affected by these.
Finally, that he waived Speedy Trial Act protection is not uncommon and was partly to his benefit, as it gave the defense more time to prepare for trial. In other words, he didn't waive to be nice to the gov't, although he was under considerable pressure to do so.
All this I understand except -- how did it all add up for 4 1/2 years? I have read a ton of criminal cases and never heard of anything like it. I'm not interested in hearing dark conspiracy theories. I suspect it was a failure of the system more than prosecutorial manipulation, and don't want to see it happen again. Was Mitnick partly responsible?
BTW, conditions in pretrial detention may have been better -- prisoners there, being pretrial, have incentive to play nice (I visited one of these places, and it was much nicer than even federal prison) -- and the 4 1/2 years may not have been excessive for his second offense, his flight, and other aggravating factors. But I don't think this is the right way to be doing things -- it would have been lovely if he proved to be innocent.
The deal was that the gov't wouldn't return his equipment unless he first allowed them to decrypt its contents. This sounds draconian but it consistent with the rule they won't return evidence that may be or contain contraband. There could be more credit card #'s, security hacking info, etc. So he was free to keep his passwords, but not to get his stuff back if he wouldn't allow it to be searched, I would suppose because some of the encrypted info is incriminating for even more offenses. It's a bed of his own making, and not a rule written for Mitnick alone.
As for keeping his hands off computers, it was an odd condition, but bear in mind this was his second conviction -- he wasn't learning.
You have *significantly* improved my stereotyped impression of Georgia state troopers. :)
Note that you benefitted from prosecutorial discretion. Mitnick did not, I think largely because he was such as asshole and ticked off the wrong people. If you'd had his kind of publicity you'd probably still be breaking rocks in Georgia.
The (apocryphal) tale I remember was of a woman who was zipping through Georgia late at 90 MPH to be stopped by a classic Cool Hand Luke trooper with an attitude. He drawled, "Lady, no one drives that fast in Georgia." She quipped, "Sherman did." And spent the night in jail.
Ouch.
No one else seems to have asked, so I'll give it a shot:
Is anyone else a little slow to associate meteorological information with tough security? I mean, what are they doing over there if they're worried about their department of volcanic activity?
Ironic that the "sensitive data" would be prove to be personnel records. As for minutes of meetings, again, I would like to know what top secret plans were discussed. Perhaps I'm paranoid, or I've seen too many of the 600 Godzilla movies.
My trick, when I think of it, is to throw a tarp over the car before the snow falls. Then the snow just peels off, and most importantly you don't get ice on the windshield.
As for the driveway, well, it is good cardiovascular exercise, like what those people spend all that money on tapes to do.
No, the DMCA is quite unusual for having a willfulness element, which goes to the defendant's knowledge of the law rather than guilty conduct. For all the criticism the DMCA has gotten, it oddly enough also contains the key to Elcomsoft's acquittal. From reading news reports, I suspect the jury wanted to acquit and focused on this provision to do it.
:)
Staples is not relevant, it concerns whether the defendant knew the facts -- the "physical properties" of his gun -- not his awareness or ignorance of the law on such guns.
Thanks for citing to Cornell Law, I went there.
5. Company X contacts Borland to clear up innocent misunderstanding;
6. Borland management opt to be rude time-wasting secretive jerks.
I think it's that last part that bothers folks.
If you all think to 1990, Apple didn't have any 'i' products. I mean, the Mac II line was the top of the crop back then..... Nothing was named with an 'i' until 1998....
:)
Politely, not so. The Macintosh IIci came out in 1989; I bought one for my work ($5000!). The "c" meant "compact," and the "i" maybe meant "intergrated video" (no card was required). The IIsi and IIvi followed soon thereafter. OK, this isn't the same as iSomething, but it did get the "i" out there for something new and cool in the stagnating Mac II line.
I think the names are mostly coincidence, but judging from the NYT article's highlight of the respect the co-founder voices for Apple's achievements, I think they're pleased to be thus associated. Apple made the "i" popular and kind of friendly. No, I don't think Apple should sue them.
I, Robot has a comma, infidel! (I only know because I checked it out today to reread after about 20 years.)
:)
Point is that Apple had nothing to do with inspiring this company. Shameless apple plug.
The NYT article references Apple Computer twice prominently, including the co-founder who "describes iRobot's goal as 'doing for robots what Apple did for computers, making them available to anyone who wants to use one.'" Sounds like inspiration to me.
The similarly to iMac etc. may just be happy circumstance, because it was Apple that made the iThing famous and friendly. I think it's interesting, not litigation material. Also, because I owned one I must correct that the first Apple product with an "i" was the Macintosh IIci introduced in 1989, one year BiR (before iRobot). The "c" I believe meant compact, the "i" I don't know. The IIsi and IIvi followed soon after.
Shameless Apple plug? As if they need one!
Typing away on my iBook....
So, Janda, how much do you get for each unit sold of this New and Exciting Product? As Seen on TV?
;-)
I'm not picking on you -- heck I sent the article in. I was hesitant to include the brand name in the title -- I hate to be the stooge of the word-of-mouth they want -- but hey they dominate the field of goofy or potentially lethal toys.
The Roomba would give my wife's ("our") cat a stroke, no doubt about. Which is why I want one.
Let's see $200 -- is that about $10 per dust bunny pelt?
BTW, both British and Australian accents are thought to be quite fetching here.
... and so on. There's a classist thing in there, and then places like Autralia have been portrayed positively in movies, and we seem to have a whole pile of Australian actors (and a cool scifi show, Farscape). Americans are interested in foreigners, we're very isolated here. Ask one to find New Zealand on a map, however, forget it. And Canadians we are somehow blind to, though they are our #1 trading partner they are taken for granted, whic, uh, irritates many of them.
(Quoting myself.) Actually lots of foreign accents are considered attractive, unless they're too hard to understand, or German, or maybe Indian or Mexican
For accents, nowadays there is the homogenizing force of TV. That's the English I speak, and I even grew up in LA. I'm sure you see a bunch of shows in "American" whereas I don't see any in "Australian" (barely a hint of one in Farscape -- it was pretty startling listening to the talent interviewed in the DVD extras). Many people who have ethnic or regional accents retain them out of pride. A Southern accent, the only really strong one we have (Boston and Brooklyn come close) is generally pretty acceptable though sometimes looked down upon as uneducated hicksville.
On stereotypes, the Texans actually get on much better with Mexicans than the supposedly liberal Californians, even though the former has a border many many times as long. It's a completely different mentality, though no one is perfect.
On language, I think English does a pretty good job, the problem is that it borrows from so many other languages with different rules -- German, old anglo-saxon, French, misc. others. I feel bad teaching my 6 y.o. spelling and pronunciation and verb conjugation, because his logic just doesn't fit what we do. But thank goodness out nouns are genderless! In German the articles even change with the case of non -- passive, dative, active.... As for grammar, oddly enough a lot of our grammar rules were invented about a hundred years ago when someone decided we needed a grammar based on Latin, and many of the rules are bogus.
So there.
My wife pronounces "our" as something like "hour." I pronounce both like the letter R, and I like it that way dammit. My usual argument is that if your meaning is clear and you don't look stupid you're doing OK.
:) I think it's a pretty good language and for better or worse it is becoming the international language. I suppose American English is the most commonly spoken? We have almost 300 million now. (And there are regional dialects here, also.)
Inflammable is correct judging from its root "to set fire to". Flammable probably resulted from someone who thought they knew what they were doing, reasoned that "in" meant not (incorrect here) and flammable meant flame-able, so they dropped the "in." Flammable mostly appears on gas trucks and does save two letters.... but means inflammable.
inquire/enquire and insure/ensure are pretty much dead issues inn American English, settling on inquire and insure for insurance, ensure for "to make sure." American law for some reason uses insure to mean ensure, I don't know why' it also spells judgement as judgment. The origins of this little changes are often quite quaint -- a printer's error one day becomes THE RULE the next. As a lawyer and someone who has done a lot of editing, the language fascinates and repels me.
BTW, both British and Australian accents are thought to be quite fetching here.
Lawyers have nothing to do with the problem; a secretary probably wrote the form letter.
:)
:)
Simply write back to Borland stating your dilemma and that so further action can be taken without documentation in writing. Be nice, be firm, enclose a copy of their letter and reference your disappointing telephone conversation. Send it certified with return receipt, keep the record, and likely for just a couple of bucks you'll never hear from them again.
Odds are you can just ignore them, but I can't quite recommend that you do so.
Obviously no responsible businessperson could do anything on their say-so. Treat this as an invoice from some company you never heard of, or an overcharge from a utility. Realistically it would cost far more to come after you than to pursue the matter (I like the notion someone here has of countersuing!). Unfortunate that they have a poor operating attitude, I'll make a note of it for the future.
Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't pirate software in the first place. You appear to be in the crossfire of unethical people retaliating against unethical people.
None of this is legal advice -- just practical.
FWLIW (L = little) -- it's actually "courtS of appeal" :)
And the stereotypes I'm more familiar with are that the Fourth is conservative (maybe that's what you mean by Neanderthal -- but less so than the "hang 'em high" Fifth); the DC tends to be political; and the 9th is unreliable. But these are just stereotypes. Because a given case is decided by 3 of 10-40 (or so) judges, the panel may be composed of more or less creative/ethical/intelligent/liberal judges. So there can be some surprises.
The Second is often called the most intellectual "mother circuit"; the Seventh is known for its intellect and Chicago School judges; and I can't think of any more profiles....
I wasn't kidding however about being forbidden from citing the 9th in my circuit; and if it comes to that something is terribly wrong. This says nothing of the skill or ability of the 9th Circuit, but instead the unworkability of such a populous and physically sprawling circuit. They have also had an alarmingly high reversal rate by the Supreme Court, including many unanimous votes and barbed commentary by the Justices. This is bad.
Well, see if you can glue 3 or 4 together as a mental stunt. Surely you have nothing better to do. :)
A patented trademark -- appears it could be something like a Swiss Army knife that is distinctive in its patented construction and operation. Maybe you could copyright it as a work of art? Or something like that... It gives me a headache.
Here's a weird and worrisome trademark case. I wrote to the note's author with the patented trademarked copyright Q; perhaps it will amuse him enough to write back. I'll let you know.
Does the fact that I'm married to a lawyer have anything to do with the fact that I haven't been summoned in over 8 years? Or, am I just lucky? Or, is this normal?
:)
:)
:)
I think it was that nervous tic of yours.
That you haven't been summoned in over 8 years sounds like blind probability. I haven't been called in 5, though I did get a pre-questionnaire. Do they keep data on you somewhere? Did you move when you got married? Jurisdictions vary in how they stock and purge the juror pool, using voter registration, tax records and the like. Maybe if you call them you can get back in the queue. Of course, they'll also decide you're insane.
Yeah, I got your point about spousal contamination. I don't know jury practice but I do know lawyers worry about the influence of family members. They're looking for some hint of unfavorable bias of prejudice. Although juries have been studied extensively I get the sense a lot of what the lawyers do is superstition. But hey, if your superstitions win cases -- and aren't repugnant to the Constitution -- go for it.
Here is one discussion of philosophy culled from Google.
*
So how is it being married to a lawyer? Do you think she argues too much? Or do you finds the sprinkles of Latin phrases (res ipsa loquitor!) sexy? My wife seems OK with it, but I do have to remember not to go for broke.
I've never served (called 3 times -- twice in Mass, but told I didn't have to come in) and think I would like to for the experience.
IANAL, however I do like reading decisions from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Why that particular circuit -- aside from you probably live in it? (For the uninitiated, the system has 11 numbered circuits plus the DC circuit and the federal circuit. The armed services have their own appeals court.)
The 9th is unique, covering -- well, as their site says: "The Ninth Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits and includes all federal courts in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands." That must be about 50 million people?
Maybe because it is so large the 9th is known for internal divisions that can lead to some chaotic and even contradictory precedent. I worked as a staff attorney in another circuit and the informal rule was never to cite to the 9th unless distancing ourselves from it. I know that sounds very parochial, but there has been criticism from other quarters as you likely know.
It's past time to break the 9th up into two or three circuits similar to the others -- it's literally that big! This would hopefully improve the administration of justice, but when and how this will happen I don't know. The circuit itself says everything is fine as it is. The current situation places an unnecessary strain on the people in the circuit, and it must be quite expensive on those occasions all the judges must meet in one place. Aside from those meetings, some judges of the circuit rarely see and faintly know other judges. In other circuits, the court hears all its cases in one or maybe two locations, which does help generate some collegiality.
Whatever. I think it's cool an IANAL is reading and enjoying the decisions.
The rules vary depending on where you are. I know of a number of lawyers who have served jury duty, including 3 federal judges -- 2 appeals court and the magistrate.
The magistrate was pretty funny when describing her experience. She said she looked forward to getting some insight, and declined to be foreperson because she wanted to observe. I think it was a medical malpractice case, and she said the jurors started saying something like, well, we don't think the doctor did anything wrong, but we should give the plaintiff some money anyway. She piped up politely that she was pretty sure they had to find negligence first (the verdict form must have indicated this -- do step A then B). Now she's probably looking at juries cockeyed.
That's an example BTW of prohibited jury nullification -- jurors ignoring the rules to do what they want, here probably figuring it was just some insurance company taking the hit. It's ugly.