Interesting about the easement. Everywhere does things differently. We have no easement between us and the street, rather a 15' "do not build" setback zone that can, as the county's discretion, be condemned for public purposes. They would have to compensate us (meagerly) for that, and until then have no additional rights over the strip.
The SC decision is California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), is available at the Cornell LIIR if you're curious. The Court ruled that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash placed at the curb, on public property. However, it is the expectation of privacy and not the location of the trash that controls.
The gov't doesn't need an easement to do you the favor of removing trash placed out for them, and the propriety of the search or seizure is examined case-by-case. If you regularly allow trash collectors to enter your property "curtilage" (periphery) to get the trash, easement or not, the police can probably do so too for the same purpose.
I'm not saying this line of decisions is of unimpeachable brilliance. Nothing is.
The Civil War Reconstruction collapsed promptly, along with the federal military presence and really any effort to change conditions in the South. Segregatikon, Jim Crow, sharecropping, and so on followed propmtly and the federal gov't could not for decades develop consensus for even a federal anti-lynching law. States rights was the rejoinder
But the civil rights movement did (mostly) clobber "states rights" to defy federal authority. This was the last defense of so-called nullification. Remember President Eisenhower sending in paratroopers to integrate Little Rock High School? Ike was not too jazzed about integration, but he was certain what he thought of defiance of the national government and courts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned segregation in multiple forms down to a local joint called Ollie's Barbeque, which lost its appeal to the Supreme Court. What was new was the Supreme Court's recognition of broad federal powers under the 14th A. and the Commerce Clause, which it never would have done before th New Deal.
The question here is whether states can impede legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement. The answer is (now) no. They have significance via the 10th A., and certain federal efforts to regulate have been deemed too intrusive, but the states are in no position to impose a stricter version of the 4th A. than the federal constitution already has.
The obvious problem with authority is that it be easily used or abused. That's why we have democratic control of our gov't. The question to ask is, who arounbd you does support this sort of national surveillance of "other people" on the off chance it might avert another 9/11? I think there are quite a few. I'm sympathetic, too, except I don't think many realize how impractical, expensive, and damaging this could be, like certain other national defense measures we're looking at....
I hate to sound old-fashioned, but please do not forget the traditional method of democratic control -- the ballot box.
C'mon, I bet some of you complaining now did vote for Bush, and might even live in Florida. Your votes count. When you write to Congress, to the President, and so on, mention 2004 more often than the Constitution. They'll be much more impressed.
I'd love to say, oh, this will never go anywhere, but then I might have said that about the Patriot Act if I had had a chance to read it before it was passed, in record time. Who says Congress is slow?:)
The search-the-trash Q was settled a long long long time ago. There is no Fourth Amendment property if the trash is on public land, as it is considered to be discarded. The line has to be drawn somewhere -- could they search it after dumping it in the truck? At the city dump? At some point control is surrendered.
But you can't commit trespass to get the trash. It sounds like the police crossed that line here anyway wit the original suspect.
Unless of course the voting public isn't bright enough to understand the contradiction.
The voting public isn't stupid; it just isn't hung up on abstractions like "states' rights." Folks just think it sounds catchy and legitimizing, and the actual agenda is a menu of desired results. Very pragmatic.
So stupid, no; cynical or indifferent, yes. That's better, isn't it?
Some notes I sent friends about whatever got screened by my own filter (on bcc) as spam because I put a $ in the subject field. Brilliant bayesian filter my eye.
In any case, the gift certificate should REQUIRE the recipient to check in at their site to confirm receipt. If no confirmation is rec'd, the merchant could try again, then notify the sender with the option to void the certificate. This is easier than tabulating receipts yourself because (1) that's work and (2) not everyone says thank-you (hey, I'm catching up!).
I've seen before and like the "10 Myths" page, but should caution it is not completely thorough. But then, he only intended to point out 10 myths about copyright (and slipped some trademark in there, too, I see).
This may sound like a technicality -- but:
Parody may be but is not necessarily fair use. I mentioned earlier Campbell v. Acuff-Ross, a Supreme Court case which held a parody rap version of "Oh Pretty Woman" might be fair use, and remanded for the final determination.
For example, you might do a great parody of "Feelings" but if it borrows too much material or deprives the copyright holder of income by substitution or teh like, then it would not be fair use.
All of this is way to detailed for present purposes. But isn't it interesting?:)
*
Oh hey, this is post #1000. I have definitely been here too much.:)
No, wait, there's also a Copyright Clause in the Constitution.
I'm ribbing you a little; but my point is that First Amendment absolutism doesn't actually solve all that much. This is a tension within the Constitution itself, and I doubt the 1st A. was meant to amend away copyright.
Evidence gets "enhanced" all the time for clarity's sake. The court has wide discretion and the American preference is to let lots of evidence in provided it is not unfairly prejudicial, inflammatory, etc.
An example I recall was an effort to enhance the Rodney King beating video. It was shot at night and the operator didn't get the focus right for several seconds. One of the critical Q's I think was whether there were nightstick blows to the head, and by whom. I saw the before-and-after videos in a lecture by one of the prosecutors; unfortunately it just wasn't very helpful. But it was admissible.
I completely understand the concern about doctored or damaged evidence. Both happen, but not to the extent that all enhanced evidence should be excluded.
"Viacom is built and funded by child enslavement practices, and key board members also bet on the cruel practice Mexican cat juggling!"
Case dismissed.
What makes you think we stopped?
on
Got Sleep?
·
· Score: 2
Bomber pilots in particular work incredibly long hours to be active just a few minutes here and there -- those trans-polar missions over Afghanistan to Diego Garcia for example.
I think the military has been careful to play it down, but drug use is a significant factor on a wink-wink basis. The public doesn't want to think too hard about sleep -starved pilots flying planes that might be nuclear-armed.
Like another poster I am very wary of updates to anything. Not needing a security patch in the first place is a heckuva lot better than beta testing a hastily written patch for free. Then there are th people who get nailed in the interim.
Also, on my [platform] I have seen only a few security updates a year on a young OS, some addressing obscure services I don't even use. What's the deal with MS? Why sweep this under the rug?
I don't buy that automatic bandaids are the answer to hemmoraging code.
I would like to ask for factually-based opinions whether these innumerable highly dangerous security holes in MS software are more the result of the ingenuity of the hackers or the incompetence of the Microsoft design and testing process, or about 50:50. I am inclined to be prejudiced against Microsoft, so I would be REALLY interested in hearing reasoned defenses of their predicament, if such exist.
So, please, no MICROSOFT RULZ!!! or MICROSOFT SUX!!! I'm not asking for a vote.
Microsoft provides the #1 small-system OS, for better or worse, which means Windows will immediately be the hot target for black-hat types intent on spreading misery or demonstrating their hatred for the leviathan.
I know, too, that half the problem has been MS's arguably foolhardy decisions in adding dubious extensions to their software, like default enabling scripting in Outlook and macros in Word. But I'm kind of curious about the mistakes in doing their core work, like handling MP3's.
Last, I have trouble understanding how so many of these bugs come from a company with many of the brightest programmers. Is it a largely problem of scale and bureaucracy?
Share your concise insightful informative nonprofane fact-based reactions from experience?:)
In Boston and the DC area (two places I've lived) the consult did cost a token amount. But the point is not to make money, but to maybe find business. A lawyer friend said the referrals tend not to be high quality (good cases) but there is a public service aspect to doing it, too.
Who came up with "disambiguated"? Yikes. How about clarified? Stated? Specified?
I hope you at least sent a birthday card to the free one.
I hope someone has mentioned that SETI (screensaver or not) also runs a lot faster when it's not wasting its time rendering graphics. I use SETI and have the screen go black after a couple of minutes so that I do at least glimpse it working properly.
Good points. Note that I did say "inferiority" not irrelevance. I've done my share of northern winters and always come back to wool. If I become a "hicker" (your word:) I'll consider poly (yech).
And 90% of my clothes, sheets, towels and so one will remain cotton. (Or, for suits, wool.) This is the product of experimentation over the years. I would like to see the environmental impact of both products reduced or, of course, a decent substitute.
Teach your kids that everything is good for something
if you earn $5 an hour, 3 hours is worth $15 to you
You earn $5? Is that still legal? Or are pirates covered by minimum wage?:)
More to the point, because it's illegal the choice between buying and burning a CD is not quite as simple as that between paying someone to wash your car and doing it yourself.
Ethically, nothing coerces theft of a luxury item; it is a self-serving choice.
widespread piracy is a signal that there is a huge amount of demand by consumers that isn't being met because of overpricing
Or it is a signal that piracy is exceptionally low cost and low risk?
My guess is that the labels will be relevant for a long time. Remember when everyone said the internet would drive the big-name media outlets out of business, because everyone could get the "news" from anyone? In the long run the internet instead proved the value of a brand name. As distribution and (maybe) promotion costs erode, the labels can simply ride the declining prices down while maintaining their profit margin. Promotion is necessary, both to get the word out and because, for better or worse, a whole lot of people do buy music on image, just like they do clothes, cars, beer.... But the labels can't compete against ever-easier piracy.
I'm acknowledging their dilemma, not complimenting their chosen tactics or marketing plan. I'd love to know just how far they could lower prices. I mentioned elsewhere here the huge disparity between costs of manufacture and retail price for many goods. All those middlemen, allowances for waste, promotion, etc.
I don't know how many good lawyers do free consults (maybe I'm wrong, but I'm picturing Lionel Hutz for some reason), but maybe give inexpensive 30-minute consults (maybe $40? depends where you live). Contact your local bar association and ask about a "lawyer referral service." My wife used to work for one.
What exactly are they charging you with? Defamation?
Parody is not per se protected, but parodies can satisfy the fair use defense to copyright infringement. Check out the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. (I spent a looong time reading this case after it came out.) There are various tests applied by the court to draw the line.
Eff.org and chillingeffects.org have very good general guides to online free speech issues. Specific litigation advice must come from a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction if things get ugly.
A tidbit -- note I wrote "stupid hateful stereotypes" not just stereotypes. Reliance on stereotypes tends to reflect a dense, plodding intellect. Throw in the hateful and it's not about humor any more, it's about aggression and fear. I have to shake my head at people who complain all the good victims are getting protected by political correctness. You can still make the jokes, they're just not funny any more.
Chris Rock does an amazing job of walking the line between tasteless and very funny, entertaining both audiences black and white. He commented he spinds his jokes differently with black audiences, and can leave out a lot of set-up. Clever guy.
Oh yeah -- the ABM thing already is a boondoogle. Just not a well-funded one. Imagine the laughs we'll have when a missile just sails right through it and takes out San Francisco. Although it won't be a missile, it'll bea Ryder truck. (Why SF? Because I live on the East Coast and am tired of us getting all the fun.)
Re the diamond -- buy the stupid ring, but consider another stone. Donate the price difference to deflect suggestions you're just cheap. Share some lit on the blood diamonds and she may not want one. My wife and I might sell the diamond she has some day, hopefully before DeBeers loses its grip and price plummet. At the moment the damage is done, and no one even understands our concerns (if we'd say we just want our money back, they'd be OK with it; if we then donated it to, say, African health care, then we'd be sanctimonious).
PS: Even gem-grade natural diamonds are not that valuable and would cost far less without DeBeers' market control. The reason they fear manmade diamonds is that they can't stockpile and monopolize them; so they come up with the fluorescence test as appearance no longer identifies "fakes." Did you see you can get your dear departed relatives or pets memorialized as a diamond? Imagine the romantic possibilities while avoiding developing world political unpleasantries. Lots of folks want to give her grandmother's engagement ring; you can give her grandmother.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting about the easement. Everywhere does things differently. We have no easement between us and the street, rather a 15' "do not build" setback zone that can, as the county's discretion, be condemned for public purposes. They would have to compensate us (meagerly) for that, and until then have no additional rights over the strip.
The SC decision is California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), is available at the Cornell LIIR if you're curious. The Court ruled that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash placed at the curb, on public property. However, it is the expectation of privacy and not the location of the trash that controls.
The gov't doesn't need an easement to do you the favor of removing trash placed out for them, and the propriety of the search or seizure is examined case-by-case. If you regularly allow trash collectors to enter your property "curtilage" (periphery) to get the trash, easement or not, the police can probably do so too for the same purpose.
I'm not saying this line of decisions is of unimpeachable brilliance. Nothing is.
The Civil War Reconstruction collapsed promptly, along with the federal military presence and really any effort to change conditions in the South. Segregatikon, Jim Crow, sharecropping, and so on followed propmtly and the federal gov't could not for decades develop consensus for even a federal anti-lynching law. States rights was the rejoinder
But the civil rights movement did (mostly) clobber "states rights" to defy federal authority. This was the last defense of so-called nullification. Remember President Eisenhower sending in paratroopers to integrate Little Rock High School? Ike was not too jazzed about integration, but he was certain what he thought of defiance of the national government and courts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned segregation in multiple forms down to a local joint called Ollie's Barbeque, which lost its appeal to the Supreme Court. What was new was the Supreme Court's recognition of broad federal powers under the 14th A. and the Commerce Clause, which it never would have done before th New Deal.
The question here is whether states can impede legitimate (constitutional) federal law enforcement. The answer is (now) no. They have significance via the 10th A., and certain federal efforts to regulate have been deemed too intrusive, but the states are in no position to impose a stricter version of the 4th A. than the federal constitution already has.
The obvious problem with authority is that it be easily used or abused. That's why we have democratic control of our gov't. The question to ask is, who arounbd you does support this sort of national surveillance of "other people" on the off chance it might avert another 9/11? I think there are quite a few. I'm sympathetic, too, except I don't think many realize how impractical, expensive, and damaging this could be, like certain other national defense measures we're looking at....
I hate to sound old-fashioned, but please do not forget the traditional method of democratic control -- the ballot box.
:)
C'mon, I bet some of you complaining now did vote for Bush, and might even live in Florida. Your votes count. When you write to Congress, to the President, and so on, mention 2004 more often than the Constitution. They'll be much more impressed.
I'd love to say, oh, this will never go anywhere, but then I might have said that about the Patriot Act if I had had a chance to read it before it was passed, in record time. Who says Congress is slow?
Cute. :)
The search-the-trash Q was settled a long long long time ago. There is no Fourth Amendment property if the trash is on public land, as it is considered to be discarded. The line has to be drawn somewhere -- could they search it after dumping it in the truck? At the city dump? At some point control is surrendered.
But you can't commit trespass to get the trash. It sounds like the police crossed that line here anyway wit the original suspect.
Unless of course the voting public isn't bright enough to understand the contradiction.
The voting public isn't stupid; it just isn't hung up on abstractions like "states' rights." Folks just think it sounds catchy and legitimizing, and the actual agenda is a menu of desired results. Very pragmatic.
So stupid, no; cynical or indifferent, yes. That's better, isn't it?
Very cute.
Some notes I sent friends about whatever got screened by my own filter (on bcc) as spam because I put a $ in the subject field. Brilliant bayesian filter my eye.
In any case, the gift certificate should REQUIRE the recipient to check in at their site to confirm receipt. If no confirmation is rec'd, the merchant could try again, then notify the sender with the option to void the certificate. This is easier than tabulating receipts yourself because (1) that's work and (2) not everyone says thank-you (hey, I'm catching up!).
I've seen before and like the "10 Myths" page, but should caution it is not completely thorough. But then, he only intended to point out 10 myths about copyright (and slipped some trademark in there, too, I see).
:)
:)
This may sound like a technicality -- but:
Parody may be but is not necessarily fair use. I mentioned earlier Campbell v. Acuff-Ross, a Supreme Court case which held a parody rap version of "Oh Pretty Woman" might be fair use, and remanded for the final determination.
For example, you might do a great parody of "Feelings" but if it borrows too much material or deprives the copyright holder of income by substitution or teh like, then it would not be fair use.
All of this is way to detailed for present purposes. But isn't it interesting?
*
Oh hey, this is post #1000. I have definitely been here too much.
Gee ... so copyright must be unconstitutional?
No, wait, there's also a Copyright Clause in the Constitution.
I'm ribbing you a little; but my point is that First Amendment absolutism doesn't actually solve all that much. This is a tension within the Constitution itself, and I doubt the 1st A. was meant to amend away copyright.
Evidence gets "enhanced" all the time for clarity's sake. The court has wide discretion and the American preference is to let lots of evidence in provided it is not unfairly prejudicial, inflammatory, etc.
An example I recall was an effort to enhance the Rodney King beating video. It was shot at night and the operator didn't get the focus right for several seconds. One of the critical Q's I think was whether there were nightstick blows to the head, and by whom. I saw the before-and-after videos in a lecture by one of the prosecutors; unfortunately it just wasn't very helpful. But it was admissible.
I completely understand the concern about doctored or damaged evidence. Both happen, but not to the extent that all enhanced evidence should be excluded.
"Viacom is built and funded by child enslavement practices, and key board members also bet on the cruel practice Mexican cat juggling!"
Case dismissed.
Bomber pilots in particular work incredibly long hours to be active just a few minutes here and there -- those trans-polar missions over Afghanistan to Diego Garcia for example.
Re the Gulf War.
I think the military has been careful to play it down, but drug use is a significant factor on a wink-wink basis. The public doesn't want to think too hard about sleep -starved pilots flying planes that might be nuclear-armed.
Two fools means no fools? ;-)
By Bill [Gates] Himself?
;-)
Wow. Most of us aren't that important.
Now, I'm wonder what was "sent and installed" with bugs in it?
Like another poster I am very wary of updates to anything. Not needing a security patch in the first place is a heckuva lot better than beta testing a hastily written patch for free. Then there are th people who get nailed in the interim.
Also, on my [platform] I have seen only a few security updates a year on a young OS, some addressing obscure services I don't even use. What's the deal with MS? Why sweep this under the rug?
I don't buy that automatic bandaids are the answer to hemmoraging code.
Oh, just kidding. :)
:)
I would like to ask for factually-based opinions whether these innumerable highly dangerous security holes in MS software are more the result of the ingenuity of the hackers or the incompetence of the Microsoft design and testing process, or about 50:50. I am inclined to be prejudiced against Microsoft, so I would be REALLY interested in hearing reasoned defenses of their predicament, if such exist.
So, please, no MICROSOFT RULZ!!! or MICROSOFT SUX!!! I'm not asking for a vote.
Microsoft provides the #1 small-system OS, for better or worse, which means Windows will immediately be the hot target for black-hat types intent on spreading misery or demonstrating their hatred for the leviathan.
I know, too, that half the problem has been MS's arguably foolhardy decisions in adding dubious extensions to their software, like default enabling scripting in Outlook and macros in Word. But I'm kind of curious about the mistakes in doing their core work, like handling MP3's.
Last, I have trouble understanding how so many of these bugs come from a company with many of the brightest programmers. Is it a largely problem of scale and bureaucracy?
Share your concise insightful informative nonprofane fact-based reactions from experience?
Lawyers aren't all bad.
:)
Thank you.
In Boston and the DC area (two places I've lived) the consult did cost a token amount. But the point is not to make money, but to maybe find business. A lawyer friend said the referrals tend not to be high quality (good cases) but there is a public service aspect to doing it, too.
Who came up with "disambiguated"? Yikes. How about clarified? Stated? Specified?
I hope you at least sent a birthday card to the free one.
I hope someone has mentioned that SETI (screensaver or not) also runs a lot faster when it's not wasting its time rendering graphics. I use SETI and have the screen go black after a couple of minutes so that I do at least glimpse it working properly.
Good points. Note that I did say "inferiority" not irrelevance. I've done my share of northern winters and always come back to wool. If I become a "hicker" (your word :) I'll consider poly (yech).
And 90% of my clothes, sheets, towels and so one will remain cotton. (Or, for suits, wool.) This is the product of experimentation over the years. I would like to see the environmental impact of both products reduced or, of course, a decent substitute.
Teach your kids that everything is good for something
Serial murder?
if you earn $5 an hour, 3 hours is worth $15 to you
:)
You earn $5? Is that still legal? Or are pirates covered by minimum wage?
More to the point, because it's illegal the choice between buying and burning a CD is not quite as simple as that between paying someone to wash your car and doing it yourself.
Ethically, nothing coerces theft of a luxury item; it is a self-serving choice.
widespread piracy is a signal that there is a huge amount of demand by consumers that isn't being met because of overpricing
Or it is a signal that piracy is exceptionally low cost and low risk?
My guess is that the labels will be relevant for a long time. Remember when everyone said the internet would drive the big-name media outlets out of business, because everyone could get the "news" from anyone? In the long run the internet instead proved the value of a brand name. As distribution and (maybe) promotion costs erode, the labels can simply ride the declining prices down while maintaining their profit margin. Promotion is necessary, both to get the word out and because, for better or worse, a whole lot of people do buy music on image, just like they do clothes, cars, beer.... But the labels can't compete against ever-easier piracy.
I'm acknowledging their dilemma, not complimenting their chosen tactics or marketing plan. I'd love to know just how far they could lower prices. I mentioned elsewhere here the huge disparity between costs of manufacture and retail price for many goods. All those middlemen, allowances for waste, promotion, etc.
Look, nothing's perfect.
:) It is safest to avoid unnecessary absolutes.
Some of the energy is turned into light by the phosphors, which then travels out a nearby window and off into space (energy lost from system).
Or maybe some of the monitor radiation gives the engineer a tan (chemical changes).
Or engineer takes data disk brimming with data home and loses it.
There, happy?
The world labors to invent a better mousetrap, and MIT gives us the better rat.
What's next guys? Robot locusts?
What do you charge for advice like that? :)
I don't know how many good lawyers do free consults (maybe I'm wrong, but I'm picturing Lionel Hutz for some reason), but maybe give inexpensive 30-minute consults (maybe $40? depends where you live). Contact your local bar association and ask about a "lawyer referral service." My wife used to work for one.
What exactly are they charging you with? Defamation?
Parody is not per se protected, but parodies can satisfy the fair use defense to copyright infringement. Check out the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. (I spent a looong time reading this case after it came out.) There are various tests applied by the court to draw the line.
Eff.org and chillingeffects.org have very good general guides to online free speech issues. Specific litigation advice must come from a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction if things get ugly.
(well, helping prevent the rolling blackouts, at least)
... there were a bunch of other companies involved, too. :)
Exactly.
And don't blame the crisis on Enron
There were additional culprits, it will be fascinating to read the long-term studies.
A tidbit -- note I wrote "stupid hateful stereotypes" not just stereotypes. Reliance on stereotypes tends to reflect a dense, plodding intellect. Throw in the hateful and it's not about humor any more, it's about aggression and fear. I have to shake my head at people who complain all the good victims are getting protected by political correctness. You can still make the jokes, they're just not funny any more.
Chris Rock does an amazing job of walking the line between tasteless and very funny, entertaining both audiences black and white. He commented he spinds his jokes differently with black audiences, and can leave out a lot of set-up. Clever guy.
Oh yeah -- the ABM thing already is a boondoogle. Just not a well-funded one. Imagine the laughs we'll have when a missile just sails right through it and takes out San Francisco. Although it won't be a missile, it'll bea Ryder truck. (Why SF? Because I live on the East Coast and am tired of us getting all the fun.)
Re the diamond -- buy the stupid ring, but consider another stone. Donate the price difference to deflect suggestions you're just cheap. Share some lit on the blood diamonds and she may not want one. My wife and I might sell the diamond she has some day, hopefully before DeBeers loses its grip and price plummet. At the moment the damage is done, and no one even understands our concerns (if we'd say we just want our money back, they'd be OK with it; if we then donated it to, say, African health care, then we'd be sanctimonious).
PS: Even gem-grade natural diamonds are not that valuable and would cost far less without DeBeers' market control. The reason they fear manmade diamonds is that they can't stockpile and monopolize them; so they come up with the fluorescence test as appearance no longer identifies "fakes." Did you see you can get your dear departed relatives or pets memorialized as a diamond? Imagine the romantic possibilities while avoiding developing world political unpleasantries. Lots of folks want to give her grandmother's engagement ring; you can give her grandmother.