Why do people keep repeating this over and over? It makes for a great anecdote, but there's a huge logical problem with it. If we fix the systems (customs that let them get in the country in the first place, watchlists, etc.) that allowed the hijackers to get on the place, then that's wonderful. BUT then all they need is a fake ID to bypass those restrictions. Thus, we need a secure ID to implement those changes.
The phrase "paid their debt to society" is one that gets thrown around a lot. What the people who use it fail to realize is that society has determined that this (entry in the database) is part of the debt. It's no different from being on probation after release, or home arrest, or losing one's voting privileges. All of these are penalties sometimes imposed after release from prison s part of the criminal's sentence.
Oh please...this has nothing to do with government's desire for power...this is about the government's desire for money. It's just like red light cameras, parking meters that reset when you drive away (instead of mechanical meters that continue to run and let someone else piggyback), etc. Yes, the desire for money is intimately related to the desire for power, but it is not the same. Yes, all the technologies I've mentioned have desirable secondary effects (reducing commuter congestion, injuries at intersections, and clearing parking spaces), but mostly it's about governments getting more money to spread around (sometimes into their own pockets in the form of better salary and benefits, and frequently to their constituents in the form of pork barrel spending so they'll be happier and re-elect them.)
I don't like what this Circuit City did and I have no idea whether they're allowed to inspect your bag or not in the state of Ohio. However, though the items may now be his property, he's still standing on their property. We cede certain rights when we step onto another's property. Now, given that the Circuit City is open to the public, they are subject to restrictions on the exercise of those rights, but it doesn't diminish the fact that it is still their property (the land and store, not the items in question.)
The largest federal powergrab in the history of the United States? Have you read any history?
Some better examples:
(1) The Reconstruction Congress forcing the ratification of the 14th Amendment as a condition for readmitting the Confederacy to the Union. This eventually gave the federal government final say over whether just about anything the states did was Constitutional.
(2) The massive expansion in size and spending of the federal government under Roosevelt, claiming the right to regulate practically anything under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Would you believe that the Supreme Court determined that a man growing wheat for his own family's consumption could be prevented from doing so because that consumption, taken together with others doing the same thing, would overall reduce the national demand for wheat? You should, because it not only happened, it's still good law. In fact, the only pushback against it has come from...wait for it...Republicans.
(3) Abraham Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus on United States soil as applied to United States citizens.
"With respect to items sold by Amazon.com, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order; however, we do NOT charge your credit card until after your order has entered the shipping process. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If an item's correct price is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation."
They clearly say that if prices change, they will contact before shipping. They say that they cannot "confirm the price of an item until you order" and will not charge the card until shipping. That implies, of course, that once the card is charged, they have "confirmed" the price, shipped the item, and any screw-ups are their responsibility. The original poster was correct. Amazon has two options when a price is screwed up before shipping, and none after shipping. Here the items were shipped, meaning they can no longer exercise their discretionary power to contact for instructions or cancel the order.
Nope, nice try. You would be right if it weren't for the fact that, as the original poster noted, they have a contract in which Amazon takes the risk for error upon itself. They stated they check prices before shipping. When two parties negotiate the risk of error between themselves and it is fixed on one party, courts will not likely disturb that. I have no doubt Amazon has received a material benefit in the form of consumer trust from the "we check prices first" promise. It would be unjust enrichment to allow them to renege. (Not really...it would actually just be breach of the contract by Amazon, but it's fun to turn around someone's attempted use of legal jargon.)
Depends on the statutory language. Crimes like possession of drugs and (I would assume) child pornography are frequently strict liability...you're holding it and you can't demonstrate that someone planted it on you, you're guilty. No intent required. I'm a first-year law student, so if someone more knowledgeable than me (namely, a lawyer with some familiarity with Florida law) wants to rebut this, feel free.
Oh please...if there's anything the government's good at, it's getting their money. You don't think the IRS would be prosecuting you for tax fraud if you tried this? They've been collecting a tax for the past century intended to fund the Spanish-American War!
Something that hasn't been directly addressed by other comments...the law in question here is not state law, it's federal. Copyright infringement is part of copyright law, delegated to Congress by the Constitution, and by them restricted to trial in federal court. Therefore, only federal statute and common law on the liability of parents for their childrens' conduct matter. I don't know the case law on point, but the general common law rule is that parents are not liable for the actions of their children unless they permit them to do something beyond their ability (operate a bulldozer, for example) or fail to exercise control over a dangerous child. Neither situation applies here.
I think this is exactly what's going on. The RIAA is worried that they'll get locked into mutual litigation. Once that happens, if defendants win, they start stacking up precedents, both binding and persuasive. More importantly, the media publishes every single story where the defendant not only got sued by the bloodthirsty RIAA, but "Look, they won, so they must've been right, and the RIAA must've been wrong!" Suddenly everyone starts asking how many of these lawsuits are actually valid.
However, the original poster seems to be spinning this. Take whatever I say with a grain of salt because I'm only a first-year law student, but a 12(b)(6) objection is not merely technical. It's the most basic defense in federal Court to frivolous claims. If I give you a dirty look, for example, that's not nice, but it's not a crime or even an offense for which you can sue. I don't know the case law on point and (again) I'm only a first-year, but it doesn't look like this clause of the Copyright Act is something for which you can directly sue. It looks like exactly what the RIAA says it is...a cost-shifting provision the Court may impose as part of a final decision. If the defendant really thinks the RIAA is making a frivolous claim, they shouldn't be filing a counterclaim, they should be filing a Rule 11 motion, which allows the Court to punish frivolous claims.
However, I can understand why they're reluctant to do this. Some commentaries believe Rule 11 has been eviscerated over the years. In its current form, it allows the party being accused under it to simply withdraw the claim, motion, etc. within a specified safe harbor period and face no repercussions. It's supposed to encourage more civilized litigation, open discourse between the parties, etc., but some think it's swung too far in the direction of letting people throw out whatever ridiculous thing they want. Again, my analysis of the whole thing may be way off, but I hope it's not (or my civ pro grades may not be as good as I hope they will be.) Hope it helps.
Jobs isn't stupid. An earlier comment said he likely had the video iPod in hand and he had hoped he could just run over the studios...almost certainly true. I'm sure this isn't his preferred method, and I think it's very likely he's actually hoping this does poorly (Rokr, anyone?) so he can go to the studios and say, "See, you were wrong and I was right. Now, do you want to make lots more money?"
No offense, but I think engineers need to stop playing lawyers. As an engineer headed to law school in the fall, I'm smart enough to know how little I know at this point.
With that said, the very first thing they teach you in law school is "it depends"...everything in the law is a balancing act, and is subject to human judgement. Sometimes it's a very lopsided balancing act, but there's almost always room for argument.
Contrast this to the "bipartisan" Abramaoff bribery scandal, where no money was given to Democrats and Abramoff's clients decreased their giving to Democrats at Abramoff's direction.
You are correct in stating that none of these received money directly from Abramoff, but given that Abramoff is a known Republican activist, is it not surprising that he would direct his Democratic donations through the tribes? He's not going to get to be a Democratic insider, but if he's speaking on behalf of a number of organizations having donated tens of thousands of dollars to their cause, he'll get their ear. Finally, though I hadn't heard that he'd instructed people to reduce their Democratic giving, could it be because Democrats now have less power to make changes compared to the Clinton or early Bush administrations?
Yes, some of the memoirs were faked. First, though, I have no doubt that some (not all, but at least a few) of those who claimed they had great respect for John Kerry were simply getting cold feet after they saw the massive publicity machine that was stirred up. More importantly, neither the memoirs nor the attack ads swayed me...the most effective ad I saw was simply veterans standing together, speaking about their objections straight to the camera. First among those was Bud Day, one of only 61 surviving Vietnam Medal of Honor recipients. I don't dispute that there were veterans (including some with extraordinary credentials themselves, like John McCain) who supported Kerry. But the office of commander-in-chief should not be filled by someone who engenders such strong feelings of opposition from those our nation has chosen to honor as its greatest heroes.
Except the Swift Boat Veterans thing was exactly what it claimed to be...Swift Boat veterans telling about their memories of the war and what they remembered of John Kerry, both personally and from his well-publicized anti-war activism. It was about people who were tortured in Vietnam POW camps saying that hearing Kerry's voice and the anti-American rhetoric he was spewing coming over the intercom in their camps terribly damaged their morale. It was about people who served with more honor and distinction than John Kerry (in case you wonder how I can make that determination, I need only mention Bud Day, the Medal of Honor winner, who was part of the movement) using their right of free speech to voice legitimate concerns.
However, since it is the Inquirer, it's possible they were just making a joke. After reading the article, I'm certainly under the impression that Linus is on the sauce.
While I know some people aren't as enthusiastic, I really like the Thinkpad trackpoint. Since most newer models come with both trackpoint and touchpad, the software lets you configure the trackpoint for pointer movement and the touchpad for scrolling. It's glorious...for long web pages, I don't even have to move my hand...just my thumb. My hands can stay on the keyboard.
Umm...sure...Dan Rather was right. Did you read the audit the network did after the scandal? Apparently, Rather and his producer actually found a number of credible witnesses that distinctly remember George Bush reporting for duty in Alabama. This little tidbit (which was actually a rather stunning revelation, considering no one had found such witnesses before this point) was mysteriously left out of Rather's piece. Forged document vs. credible living witnesses...yes, one speaks to his appointment and performance in Texas and one speaks to his actions in Alabama, but to leave one out and the other in seems a bit biased, methinks.
The article summary misses the point. Software updates and fixes shouldn't be necessary for any software. Due primarily to companies like Microsoft teaching us that improperly tested software is OK, and using their paying customers as beta testers, we've now reached this point. Car manufacturers that do not properly test their software should be held accountable both civilly and criminally.
I agree with you, and as a biologist who also happens to be an orthodox Catholic, I disagree with the attempt to remove evolution from schools or even to elevate intelligent design to its level. At the same time, I understand how these people feel - many Christians in the United States believe that activists are using the courts and a perverted reading of the Constitution to remove religion entirely from public society.
Atheists would have you believe that atheism is not a religion, that it is therefore somehow more appropriate than religion for the public sphere. I agree that it is not a religion, but it is a particular school of thought, and it is no better or worse than many schools of religious thought.
Once America has been secularized like some people want, religion won't be available for doing either: explaining natural phenomena or setting the moral compass.
Tree? Huh? I always love it when people not only clearly have not read the article, but are then modded "Interesting" for having said something "deep." This is despite the fact that aforementioned post is completely without basis in fact.
Notice that the article you linked to says organic dirt. While we have (debatably) found evidence of prior life on Mars, there is no direct evidence of current life on Mars, and even if there was, certainly not to the extent that a majority of the dirt created would be organic.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people keep repeating this over and over? It makes for a great anecdote, but there's a huge logical problem with it. If we fix the systems (customs that let them get in the country in the first place, watchlists, etc.) that allowed the hijackers to get on the place, then that's wonderful. BUT then all they need is a fake ID to bypass those restrictions. Thus, we need a secure ID to implement those changes.
The phrase "paid their debt to society" is one that gets thrown around a lot. What the people who use it fail to realize is that society has determined that this (entry in the database) is part of the debt. It's no different from being on probation after release, or home arrest, or losing one's voting privileges. All of these are penalties sometimes imposed after release from prison s part of the criminal's sentence.
Oh please...this has nothing to do with government's desire for power...this is about the government's desire for money. It's just like red light cameras, parking meters that reset when you drive away (instead of mechanical meters that continue to run and let someone else piggyback), etc. Yes, the desire for money is intimately related to the desire for power, but it is not the same. Yes, all the technologies I've mentioned have desirable secondary effects (reducing commuter congestion, injuries at intersections, and clearing parking spaces), but mostly it's about governments getting more money to spread around (sometimes into their own pockets in the form of better salary and benefits, and frequently to their constituents in the form of pork barrel spending so they'll be happier and re-elect them.)
I don't like what this Circuit City did and I have no idea whether they're allowed to inspect your bag or not in the state of Ohio. However, though the items may now be his property, he's still standing on their property. We cede certain rights when we step onto another's property. Now, given that the Circuit City is open to the public, they are subject to restrictions on the exercise of those rights, but it doesn't diminish the fact that it is still their property (the land and store, not the items in question.)
The largest federal powergrab in the history of the United States? Have you read any history?
Some better examples:
(1) The Reconstruction Congress forcing the ratification of the 14th Amendment as a condition for readmitting the Confederacy to the Union. This eventually gave the federal government final say over whether just about anything the states did was Constitutional.
(2) The massive expansion in size and spending of the federal government under Roosevelt, claiming the right to regulate practically anything under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Would you believe that the Supreme Court determined that a man growing wheat for his own family's consumption could be prevented from doing so because that consumption, taken together with others doing the same thing, would overall reduce the national demand for wheat? You should, because it not only happened, it's still good law. In fact, the only pushback against it has come from...wait for it...Republicans.
(3) Abraham Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus on United States soil as applied to United States citizens.
You were saying?
Are you intentionally misreading their terms?
"With respect to items sold by Amazon.com, we cannot confirm the price of an item until you order; however, we do NOT charge your credit card until after your order has entered the shipping process. Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If an item's correct price is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation."
They clearly say that if prices change, they will contact before shipping. They say that they cannot "confirm the price of an item until you order" and will not charge the card until shipping. That implies, of course, that once the card is charged, they have "confirmed" the price, shipped the item, and any screw-ups are their responsibility. The original poster was correct. Amazon has two options when a price is screwed up before shipping, and none after shipping. Here the items were shipped, meaning they can no longer exercise their discretionary power to contact for instructions or cancel the order.
Nope, nice try. You would be right if it weren't for the fact that, as the original poster noted, they have a contract in which Amazon takes the risk for error upon itself. They stated they check prices before shipping. When two parties negotiate the risk of error between themselves and it is fixed on one party, courts will not likely disturb that. I have no doubt Amazon has received a material benefit in the form of consumer trust from the "we check prices first" promise. It would be unjust enrichment to allow them to renege. (Not really...it would actually just be breach of the contract by Amazon, but it's fun to turn around someone's attempted use of legal jargon.)
Depends on the statutory language. Crimes like possession of drugs and (I would assume) child pornography are frequently strict liability...you're holding it and you can't demonstrate that someone planted it on you, you're guilty. No intent required. I'm a first-year law student, so if someone more knowledgeable than me (namely, a lawyer with some familiarity with Florida law) wants to rebut this, feel free.
Oh please...if there's anything the government's good at, it's getting their money. You don't think the IRS would be prosecuting you for tax fraud if you tried this? They've been collecting a tax for the past century intended to fund the Spanish-American War!
Something that hasn't been directly addressed by other comments...the law in question here is not state law, it's federal. Copyright infringement is part of copyright law, delegated to Congress by the Constitution, and by them restricted to trial in federal court. Therefore, only federal statute and common law on the liability of parents for their childrens' conduct matter. I don't know the case law on point, but the general common law rule is that parents are not liable for the actions of their children unless they permit them to do something beyond their ability (operate a bulldozer, for example) or fail to exercise control over a dangerous child. Neither situation applies here.
I think this is exactly what's going on. The RIAA is worried that they'll get locked into mutual litigation. Once that happens, if defendants win, they start stacking up precedents, both binding and persuasive. More importantly, the media publishes every single story where the defendant not only got sued by the bloodthirsty RIAA, but "Look, they won, so they must've been right, and the RIAA must've been wrong!" Suddenly everyone starts asking how many of these lawsuits are actually valid.
However, the original poster seems to be spinning this. Take whatever I say with a grain of salt because I'm only a first-year law student, but a 12(b)(6) objection is not merely technical. It's the most basic defense in federal Court to frivolous claims. If I give you a dirty look, for example, that's not nice, but it's not a crime or even an offense for which you can sue. I don't know the case law on point and (again) I'm only a first-year, but it doesn't look like this clause of the Copyright Act is something for which you can directly sue. It looks like exactly what the RIAA says it is...a cost-shifting provision the Court may impose as part of a final decision. If the defendant really thinks the RIAA is making a frivolous claim, they shouldn't be filing a counterclaim, they should be filing a Rule 11 motion, which allows the Court to punish frivolous claims.
However, I can understand why they're reluctant to do this. Some commentaries believe Rule 11 has been eviscerated over the years. In its current form, it allows the party being accused under it to simply withdraw the claim, motion, etc. within a specified safe harbor period and face no repercussions. It's supposed to encourage more civilized litigation, open discourse between the parties, etc., but some think it's swung too far in the direction of letting people throw out whatever ridiculous thing they want. Again, my analysis of the whole thing may be way off, but I hope it's not (or my civ pro grades may not be as good as I hope they will be.) Hope it helps.
Jobs isn't stupid. An earlier comment said he likely had the video iPod in hand and he had hoped he could just run over the studios...almost certainly true. I'm sure this isn't his preferred method, and I think it's very likely he's actually hoping this does poorly (Rokr, anyone?) so he can go to the studios and say, "See, you were wrong and I was right. Now, do you want to make lots more money?"
No offense, but I think engineers need to stop playing lawyers. As an engineer headed to law school in the fall, I'm smart enough to know how little I know at this point.
With that said, the very first thing they teach you in law school is "it depends"...everything in the law is a balancing act, and is subject to human judgement. Sometimes it's a very lopsided balancing act, but there's almost always room for argument.
Contrast this to the "bipartisan" Abramaoff bribery scandal, where no money was given to Democrats and Abramoff's clients decreased their giving to Democrats at Abramoff's direction.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/22513 2.shtml: Democratic senator Pat Leahy reseived thousands of dollars from Abramoff (Vermont Guardian)c le/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html : Lists Daschle, Reid, and Gephardt as amongst his biggest recipients.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/11563: Senate Minority Leader Reid received $60,000 from Indian tribes linked to Abramoff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
You are correct in stating that none of these received money directly from Abramoff, but given that Abramoff is a known Republican activist, is it not surprising that he would direct his Democratic donations through the tribes? He's not going to get to be a Democratic insider, but if he's speaking on behalf of a number of organizations having donated tens of thousands of dollars to their cause, he'll get their ear. Finally, though I hadn't heard that he'd instructed people to reduce their Democratic giving, could it be because Democrats now have less power to make changes compared to the Clinton or early Bush administrations?
Yes, some of the memoirs were faked. First, though, I have no doubt that some (not all, but at least a few) of those who claimed they had great respect for John Kerry were simply getting cold feet after they saw the massive publicity machine that was stirred up. More importantly, neither the memoirs nor the attack ads swayed me...the most effective ad I saw was simply veterans standing together, speaking about their objections straight to the camera. First among those was Bud Day, one of only 61 surviving Vietnam Medal of Honor recipients. I don't dispute that there were veterans (including some with extraordinary credentials themselves, like John McCain) who supported Kerry. But the office of commander-in-chief should not be filled by someone who engenders such strong feelings of opposition from those our nation has chosen to honor as its greatest heroes.
Mike
Except the Swift Boat Veterans thing was exactly what it claimed to be...Swift Boat veterans telling about their memories of the war and what they remembered of John Kerry, both personally and from his well-publicized anti-war activism. It was about people who were tortured in Vietnam POW camps saying that hearing Kerry's voice and the anti-American rhetoric he was spewing coming over the intercom in their camps terribly damaged their morale. It was about people who served with more honor and distinction than John Kerry (in case you wonder how I can make that determination, I need only mention Bud Day, the Medal of Honor winner, who was part of the movement) using their right of free speech to voice legitimate concerns.
Mike
However, since it is the Inquirer, it's possible they were just making a joke. After reading the article, I'm certainly under the impression that Linus is on the sauce.
Thank you
While I know some people aren't as enthusiastic, I really like the Thinkpad trackpoint. Since most newer models come with both trackpoint and touchpad, the software lets you configure the trackpoint for pointer movement and the touchpad for scrolling. It's glorious...for long web pages, I don't even have to move my hand...just my thumb. My hands can stay on the keyboard.
Umm...sure...Dan Rather was right. Did you read the audit the network did after the scandal? Apparently, Rather and his producer actually found a number of credible witnesses that distinctly remember George Bush reporting for duty in Alabama. This little tidbit (which was actually a rather stunning revelation, considering no one had found such witnesses before this point) was mysteriously left out of Rather's piece. Forged document vs. credible living witnesses...yes, one speaks to his appointment and performance in Texas and one speaks to his actions in Alabama, but to leave one out and the other in seems a bit biased, methinks.
The article summary misses the point. Software updates and fixes shouldn't be necessary for any software. Due primarily to companies like Microsoft teaching us that improperly tested software is OK, and using their paying customers as beta testers, we've now reached this point. Car manufacturers that do not properly test their software should be held accountable both civilly and criminally.
I agree with you, and as a biologist who also happens to be an orthodox Catholic, I disagree with the attempt to remove evolution from schools or even to elevate intelligent design to its level. At the same time, I understand how these people feel - many Christians in the United States believe that activists are using the courts and a perverted reading of the Constitution to remove religion entirely from public society.
Atheists would have you believe that atheism is not a religion, that it is therefore somehow more appropriate than religion for the public sphere. I agree that it is not a religion, but it is a particular school of thought, and it is no better or worse than many schools of religious thought.
Once America has been secularized like some people want, religion won't be available for doing either: explaining natural phenomena or setting the moral compass.
Tree? Huh? I always love it when people not only clearly have not read the article, but are then modded "Interesting" for having said something "deep." This is despite the fact that aforementioned post is completely without basis in fact.
The "Sonny Bono thingy" would be the Copyright Term Extension Act. Notice the title.
Notice that the article you linked to says organic dirt. While we have (debatably) found evidence of prior life on Mars, there is no direct evidence of current life on Mars, and even if there was, certainly not to the extent that a majority of the dirt created would be organic.