Consideration is what the parties to a contract agree to give up under the contract. One common misconception is that consideration is what you get, rather than what you give up. See Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538 (1891) (agreement to give up smoking, drinking and gambling until age of 21 sufficient consideration).
What, doctors don't get paid in Canada? Do Canadians steal the medical equipment and hospitals from somewhere else? Sounds a bit fishy to me. Microsoft is probably behind it.;)
Because they're a monopolist that abuses their monopoly position. The trial court said that, the appeals court said that, and the supreme court, by refusing to hear the case, concurred.
While I agree that MS is a monopolist, that the Supreme Court denied cert means absolutely nothing as to the status of MS as a monopolist. A denial of cert simply means that the Court does not believe that the issue is important enough (in the grand context of The Law) for it to spend time on it. It has never been, and never will be, an implicit comment upon the merits. (Otherwise, all cases that the Court hears would be reversed, which obviously isn't the case).
For what it's worth, I think all ISPs should be regulated just like any other type of public utility.
An ISP isn't a public utility, since it doesn't provide an essential service (no, really), and it isn't a monopoly (public utilities generally are). Also, if ISPs were treated like, say, the electric company, the ISP couldn't boot an abusive customer so long as he paid his bills.
The reason he fired his attorney is that she told him he would lose the case if he plead not guilty [securityfocus.com]. Now I don't know about you, but if I was innocent and my lawyer told me to plead guilty or go to jail, I'd start looking for new representation too.
In federal court, you do not want to go to trial and be found guilty. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines practically ensure that you will get a longer sentence if you go to trial (no 2- or 3- level reduction for "acceptance of responsibility" and possible 2-level enhancement for "obstruction of justice" if you testify and the judge decides that you lied on the stand, as a starting point). You are better off pleading to the original charge (even if no reduced charge is available) than being found guilty. A lawyer who doesn't urge a clearly guilty defendant to plead is not doing her job, especially in a federal criminal case, and some lawyers have been found constitutionally ineffective when a client receives a long sentence following trial having rejected a plea offer (see Boria v. Keane in the Second Circuit; sorry, don't have a cite).
Prior art man. 30 years ago I used to boot a PDP-8 off punched paper tape. Just load that tape into the reader and let it fly. 20 minutes later and the computer was ready to rip, all 4K of 12 bit work memory ripped to go.
Don't say "rip" when you're talking about paper tape.;)
You know! MacOSX and FreeBSD have nothing common. Except kernel.
Mac OS X is based on Mach. FreeBSD isn't. How could they possibly have the kernel in common?
Re:Yeah! But try getting it to look as nice as LaT
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
LaTeX produces better formatted documents because (1) the underlying typesetting engine (TeX) is better, and (2) LaTeX markup is structural, rather than physical, so it allows the computer a lot of freedom in making layout decisions. TeX formats a paragraph at a time, rather than a line at a time, and does a terrific job balancing paragraphs without using excessive hyphenation (compare, e.g., troff, which hyphenates too much, or most word processors, which don't hyphenate at all). LaTeX makes sure that the various elements of your document are placed in such a way as to look good. For example, if you use figures (graphs, tables, pictures), LaTeX will choose places for them that allow sections of the text to end in logical places (especially at the end of the page, so new sections start on a new page). You don't have to mess with the physical formatting of the document at all.
As to ease of use, that is subjective. Since LaTeX markup is generally structural (or logical) versus physical, you really never have to worry about what the document will look like while you are editing it (unlike with a word processor, where secretaries frequently insert extra newlines to push material to the next page, for example). However, if you come from an exclusively pointy-clicky world, there would be an adjustment period. Personally, I cannot stand using word processors after having used LaTeX for a couple of years.
Peter Wright is a software consultant and the author of numerous books on Visual Basic programming. He is currently working on two.Net titles for Apress slated for release later this year.
Sensitive material is generally placed under seal by the court, with an order that the laywers who receive copies not disclose them. It is technically part of the record, but sealed, so the public cannot view it.
However, here's the thing: Right now, when you purchase a piece of software, you already (in the US) have the right to copy it into memory or make a backup for your own use; both of those rights are explicitly granted (the former by the DMCA, IIRC). So... what extra usage above those rights does the license permit you? Generally, none.
And as much as the vendor may claim that their software is licensed rather than sold, if you purchased it from a third-party vendor, you still (via first-sale doctrine) bought that software.
So... where's the consideration?
Exactly what you just said. The right to copy it into memory, etc. is the consideration. Just because the statute sets a minimum for the rights that the company gives up doesn't make it "not consideration." (I.e., the statute doesn't provide everyone with those rights, just those who contract with the company to (for lack of a better word) obtain the use of the software).
CONTRACTS, as you put it, require CONSIDERATION -- that is, there must be something in it for both parties. When you purchase a piece of software from a third party, you automatically have the right to do whatever you want with it, excluding violating copyright.
Consideration isn't what you receive, it's what you give up. A software company has the legal right to prevent you from copying its software (copyright). You have some money. You give up some money, and the company gives up its right to prevent you from copying the software, to a limited extent. It certainly can place conditions on that.
(IAAL, but this should not be construed as legal advice).
In a civil suit you actually do kinda have to put up a defense to prove that you didn't do something. It is preponerance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt like in a criminal investigation.
Not exactly. The plaintiff would need to show that it had sufficient evidence (in admissible form) to go forward in order to get to trial at all. If they have no proof, the case will be dismissed on summary judgment. Bare accusations won't cut it.
"Two years, to investigate existing evidence and you don't really know whether a suspect broke the law, which you don't actually even understand, so charge him and let the courts figure it out?" (The jist of the story) Sorry, but that is irresponsible bullshit. It's like charging someone with murder without a victim.
Bad analogy.
It should be obvious that most (or all) criminal statutes have "gray areas" in which it is unclear whether the statute applies to a particular set of facts,
There is a huge body of case law (at least in common law countries, e.g., U.S.,
U.K.) deciding such issues even for ostensibly straightforward statutes (e.g., rape or murder laws).
It appears that in this instance the prosecutor feels that she has a good faith argument that the statute should apply, but obviously she doesn't know, since this situation has not been tested before.
She certainly has a right to bring a test case if she can make a good faith argument for liability.
The simple fact of the matter is, that the Fed lacks the authority to further several corporation's interests at the expense of inalienable rights of its citizens. The DMCA violates the Free Expression, First Sale Doctrine, and Fair Use rights of the American people.
You can believe this all you want, but you should be reluctant to rely on it until a court (preferably an appellate court) has agreed with your position.
That requires a test case.
(Traditionally in the U.S., a "liberal" group such as the ACLU creates the test case by persuading some people to violate a questionable law and then representing them in the courts. However, "liberal" groups don't own a monopoly on the practice).
I don't know about GIF, but formats like JPEG and MPEG are generally parsed as bitstreams, and thus data is grabbed a byte (or perhaps two) at a time. Not much opportunity for buffer overruns there.
Slashdot Mirror
Consideration is what the parties to a contract agree to give up under the contract. One common misconception is that consideration is what you get, rather than what you give up. See Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N.Y. 538 (1891) (agreement to give up smoking, drinking and gambling until age of 21 sufficient consideration).
What, doctors don't get paid in Canada? Do Canadians steal the medical equipment and hospitals from somewhere else? Sounds a bit fishy to me. Microsoft is probably behind it. ;)
Because the prosecutor shows you all the proof you need to see to arrive at that determination. When they have him cold, they look for a plea.
While I agree that MS is a monopolist, that the Supreme Court denied cert means absolutely nothing as to the status of MS as a monopolist. A denial of cert simply means that the Court does not believe that the issue is important enough (in the grand context of The Law) for it to spend time on it. It has never been, and never will be, an implicit comment upon the merits. (Otherwise, all cases that the Court hears would be reversed, which obviously isn't the case).
An ISP isn't a public utility, since it doesn't provide an essential service (no, really), and it isn't a monopoly (public utilities generally are). Also, if ISPs were treated like, say, the electric company, the ISP couldn't boot an abusive customer so long as he paid his bills.
In federal court, you do not want to go to trial and be found guilty. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines practically ensure that you will get a longer sentence if you go to trial (no 2- or 3- level reduction for "acceptance of responsibility" and possible 2-level enhancement for "obstruction of justice" if you testify and the judge decides that you lied on the stand, as a starting point). You are better off pleading to the original charge (even if no reduced charge is available) than being found guilty. A lawyer who doesn't urge a clearly guilty defendant to plead is not doing her job, especially in a federal criminal case, and some lawyers have been found constitutionally ineffective when a client receives a long sentence following trial having rejected a plea offer (see Boria v. Keane in the Second Circuit; sorry, don't have a cite).
Don't say "rip" when you're talking about paper tape.
It is Apple Computer, Inc.
Mac OS X is based on Mach. FreeBSD isn't. How could they possibly have the kernel in common?
LaTeX produces better formatted documents because (1) the underlying typesetting engine (TeX) is better, and (2) LaTeX markup is structural, rather than physical, so it allows the computer a lot of freedom in making layout decisions. TeX formats a paragraph at a time, rather than a line at a time, and does a terrific job balancing paragraphs without using excessive hyphenation (compare, e.g., troff, which hyphenates too much, or most word processors, which don't hyphenate at all). LaTeX makes sure that the various elements of your document are placed in such a way as to look good. For example, if you use figures (graphs, tables, pictures), LaTeX will choose places for them that allow sections of the text to end in logical places (especially at the end of the page, so new sections start on a new page). You don't have to mess with the physical formatting of the document at all.
As to ease of use, that is subjective. Since LaTeX markup is generally structural (or logical) versus physical, you really never have to worry about what the document will look like while you are editing it (unlike with a word processor, where secretaries frequently insert extra newlines to push material to the next page, for example). However, if you come from an exclusively pointy-clicky world, there would be an adjustment period. Personally, I cannot stand using word processors after having used LaTeX for a couple of years.
For a summary of the history of the Paramount et al. antitrust case, try this page
Incorrect.
You think the board would prefer this one?
About the writer
Peter Wright is a software consultant and the author of numerous books on Visual Basic programming. He is currently working on two
Sensitive material is generally placed under seal by the court, with an order that the laywers who receive copies not disclose them. It is technically part of the record, but sealed, so the public cannot view it.
Um, dude? I know you misspelled "Tolkien."
Nielsen has used black boxes connected to TVs for many, many years to collect viewing information.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/wtrrm.html
NetBSD on PowerPC is a relatively recent project (it well postdates Linux/PPC, which, IIRC, dates
back to circa 1994).
And as much as the vendor may claim that their software is licensed rather than sold, if you purchased it from a third-party vendor, you still (via first-sale doctrine) bought that software.
So... where's the consideration?
Exactly what you just said. The right to copy it into memory, etc. is the consideration. Just because the statute sets a minimum for the rights that the company gives up doesn't make it "not consideration." (I.e., the statute doesn't provide everyone with those rights, just those who contract with the company to (for lack of a better word) obtain the use of the software).
Consideration isn't what you receive, it's what you give up. A software company has the legal right to prevent you from copying its software (copyright). You have some money. You give up some money, and the company gives up its right to prevent you from copying the software, to a limited extent. It certainly can place conditions on that.
(IAAL, but this should not be construed as legal advice).
Not exactly. The plaintiff would need to show that it had sufficient evidence (in admissible form) to go forward in order to get to trial at all. If they have no proof, the case will be dismissed on summary judgment. Bare accusations won't cut it.
Bad analogy. It should be obvious that most (or all) criminal statutes have "gray areas" in which it is unclear whether the statute applies to a particular set of facts, There is a huge body of case law (at least in common law countries, e.g., U.S., U.K.) deciding such issues even for ostensibly straightforward statutes (e.g., rape or murder laws).
It appears that in this instance the prosecutor feels that she has a good faith argument that the statute should apply, but obviously she doesn't know, since this situation has not been tested before. She certainly has a right to bring a test case if she can make a good faith argument for liability.
The simple fact of the matter is, that the Fed lacks the authority to further several corporation's interests at the expense of inalienable rights of its citizens. The DMCA violates the Free Expression, First Sale Doctrine, and Fair Use rights of the American people.
You can believe this all you want, but you should be reluctant to rely on it until a court (preferably an appellate court) has agreed with your position. That requires a test case. (Traditionally in the U.S., a "liberal" group such as the ACLU creates the test case by persuading some people to violate a questionable law and then representing them in the courts. However, "liberal" groups don't own a monopoly on the practice).
I don't know about GIF, but formats like JPEG and MPEG are generally parsed as bitstreams, and thus data is grabbed a byte (or perhaps two) at a time. Not much opportunity for buffer overruns there.