Congress will care about it when a laptop full of THEIR personal data gets stolen.
Just like the Jefferson fiasco - FBI busts down a citizen's door, it's strong justice; bust down a Congresscritter's door and it's a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!!!omgwtfbbq
"OK, you as the owner might like to keep other people from walking in your forest, but that's just stupid. It's a forest, why would anyone sane care about someone walking in there, especially since they aren't allowed to leave traces of their passage? The forests in Finland cover huge areas. If you walk around your own forest all day, and get lucky, you just might even meet up with the "trespasser" and shout at them to make you feel better, but your chances of finding anyone are pretty slim to begin with."
The issue is that, while causing damage may be illegal, that doesn't mean it won't happen. And if, as you assert, the "trespassers" are so difficult to find, there is a potential of a large amount of damage being done without anyone being held accountable. Now the landowner is left holding the bag for repairs and lost economic gain.
The Finnish land law, as you describe it, sounds quite a bit like teh state of Internet law. Until relatively recently, the internet was a lassez-faire (SP?) place, but people have been taking advantage of it, so now laws must change or be reinterpreted.
It sounds like Finland may be something similar, but...
"In recent years, we've however had some businessmen import seasonal workers from low-wage countries such as Thailand to pick berries. The businessmen are making a living, and it might be possible that the law with respect to berries might change, if berry-picking turns out to be profitable this way. On the other hand, our social democratic overlords see that kind of business as exploiting the poor, and there's no evidence of huge profits being made there, so we'll likely keep our laws for the foreseeable future."
In my opinion, you are whistling in the dark. Someone ALWAYS manages to spoil a good thing.
You are missing the point - the parents weren't going against the husband's wishes, they were going against their DAUGHTER'S wishes. Terry CHOSE to leave her parents and give her trust to her husband. Terry's parents were, in efect, saying that Terry wasn't competent to make that decision then.
Do you belive that parents should make decisions regarding their children's marriage choices against their children's will? Should Terry's parents have had the ability to file for divorce for Terry prior to her illness as well?
Terry chose her husband to make the decisions he did. She could have stayed unmarried, but she CHOSE!
"Otherwise he could simply have divorced her and moved on with his life."
No, he couldn't.
Terry was legally incompetent to participaet in divorce (or any other) proceedings. Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal - just have her legal guardian represent her. Problem - her legal guardian was Mark. Mark couldn't try to divorce her - he'd be representing her against himself. It only became an "option" when her parents "offered" to take over her guardianship in a quid pro quo - he relinquishes his responsibility to his wife in return for not contresting a divorce.
Mark was Terry's legal guardian because she CHOSE it before she died, by marrying him. Her parents couldn't (and probably still can't) get that through their heads. They went to desperate lengths to override their daughter's wishes, denying her the very autonomy and choice she had made previously. She chose to leave them and put her care into the hands of another. Mark did the same thing - it's called marriage.
Mark discharged his responsibilities to his wife. Why couldn't her parents accept that?
Add one more idea and the simile is better - toll roads.
When UPS uses the PA turnpike to transport packages, they pay for the use on a per/mile, per axle basis - in other words, proportional to the load.
Imagine if Newegg started getting billed by the Turnpike Commission because they are such "heavy users". They would nbe saying that UPS just pays for the trucks to cross the state, while the shipper must pay for the product to cross the state.
Just because the record labels don't bolt doesn't mean they are in bed with Jobs. It is entirely possible to despise someone and still work with them - it's called real life.
The labels may be greedy, manipulative, evil, whatever, but they are not stupid. Prior to iTunes, the labels weren't making a dime off Internet based distribution. Oh, they could see it was happening, but they couldn't really touch it, except for token lawsuits and lobbying. ITunes gave them a way to make some money off the phenomenon. Do they still want to make ALL of the money? You bet, and that's why they dislike Steve-o. But they are not going to walk away from a lot of money (over 50%) for no money.
Think of it another way: 1 label leaves - the other three laugh all the way to the bank as their sales increase and the wayward label's stuff gets downloaded anyway, for free. All the labels leave - wham - antitrust suit. Remember, these guys can't NOT collude - that's what the RIAA is for.
I won't say Jobs is a saint - he may be Beelzebub to RIAA's Lucifer - but the saying goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Right here, right now, Steve Jobs is our friend.
1) Go for the "unconscionable clause" arguement - the clause is so broad and powerful it would be against the public interest to allow its enforcement.
2) "Reproduction and distribution under any medium". Argue that the labels aren't distributing via a medium - they are distributing the data itself, sans medium. The contracts contemplate distribution of a physical object with the music encoded. Where is the physical object? The wires? No, the labels aren't distributing them. (OK, this one is a reach, but it's inline with the arguement they are making now.)
specifically, assert that the major labels have NO right to distribute songs electronically. Prior to 2002, electronic distribution wasn't a blip on the radar screen. If the artists can argue that it is impossible to sign over distribution rights for a method that didn't exist when the contract is signed, then the rights devolve to the original copyright holder. that means the artists could cut deals with Apple directly and cut the RIAA members out completely.
If they can get a legal team with big enough balls, and the right judge, it could happen.
"Burglars couldn't get into your house if you had no doors or windows"
Technically, that's incorrect.
Current exterior wall construction for a large portion of the housing market consists of (from the outside-in)vinyl siding, Tyvek vapor barrier, a fibrous type sheathing (sometimes no more than 1/8" thick cardboard), glass fiber insulation, and gypsum wallboard. All of these material are easily cut with a $1.99 utility knife.
You can get into most houses these days with a knife and 5 minutes by going right through the wall.
The first time I heard the sound was the first run of "Die Hard" in a brand new theater. they started with closing the curtain, and sloooowly opening it accompanied by the sound. In the awed silence thast followed, I said loudly and distinctly "Big deal!".
"If a paper application was reviewd by a person, pray tell, how does that differ from an electronic application being reviewd by a person? "
It eliminates the initial human filter. It is entirely too easy for a manager to say to a black applicant "we're not hiring" or "we've run out of applications". A kiosk won't do that. Can there be discrimination later? Sure, but now it's easier to prove - the application exists in the system.
"I assume that a human probably wrote the software, so if you want to argue against bias, there's always a way to prove that some form of human bias exists"
Theoretically true, but the software for the HR apps are provided by a 3rd party, who's interest is in providing the fairest software they can. That contractor will inevitably be dragged into an EEO case, and their only defense is to be able to say "My software does not discriminate" and eb able to PROVE it. I sincerely doubt that there are "-nigger,-kike,-mackeral_snapper" command line options.
Slashdot Mirror
According to PETA, they not only have rights, they probably have more rights than you.
":my old Laptop has 96MB and is pretty turgid"
Are you aware the definition of "turgid" is "full, but not swollen". Also often used to describe the condition of an erect penis.
I think you may have been thinking of "torpid".
Cue Ballmer "going to fucking kill...throw chair" jokes.
I believe the proper increment is $25.25, followed by $35.35, etc.
And in response to my 10 year old daughter's question: Yes, Victoria, that IS hippie music.
I assume by this you are comparing Eisenhower with Gore or Kerry, and they compare favorably.
Wow. Just...wow.
You have totally missed my point. I was referring to their PERSONAL data - SSN's, bank account numbers, etc. You know, just like in my original post.
You are referring to an alleged "hacking" incident that concerned political material.
Apples and oranges. Nice swipe at the Republicans though - sure to get you modded up.
Congress will care about it when a laptop full of THEIR personal data gets stolen.
Just like the Jefferson fiasco - FBI busts down a citizen's door, it's strong justice; bust down a Congresscritter's door and it's a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!!!omgwtfbbq
Guarantee updates every 2 years? No.
Predict that the software would be updated? Yes, and that's how they sold Software Assurance.
Can the SA customers sue to get their money back? Probably not, although some will try.
Will the SA customers renew? Hell no - they probably would have been better off buying Vista retail a year from now (after the bugs are known).
Is Microsoft going to lose revenues because of the Vista delay? Oh yeah.
The file they opened was labeled "MyWifePics.exe" or similar.
Option 1: The good samaritans were hoping to identify the drive's owner by recognizing an identifying birthmark on his wife's ass.
Option #2: "Hey - I just found a $50 jump drive. And it already has porn on it - BONUS!"
The liklihood of each option is left as an exercise for the reader.
THEY'VE got the biggest balls of them all.
I believe the new meme is "tinfoil wrapped block of cash in her freezer".
"OK, you as the owner might like to keep other people from walking in your forest, but that's just stupid. It's a forest, why would anyone sane care about someone walking in there, especially since they aren't allowed to leave traces of their passage? The forests in Finland cover huge areas. If you walk around your own forest all day, and get lucky, you just might even meet up with the "trespasser" and shout at them to make you feel better, but your chances of finding anyone are pretty slim to begin with."
The issue is that, while causing damage may be illegal, that doesn't mean it won't happen. And if, as you assert, the "trespassers" are so difficult to find, there is a potential of a large amount of damage being done without anyone being held accountable. Now the landowner is left holding the bag for repairs and lost economic gain.
The Finnish land law, as you describe it, sounds quite a bit like teh state of Internet law. Until relatively recently, the internet was a lassez-faire (SP?) place, but people have been taking advantage of it, so now laws must change or be reinterpreted.
It sounds like Finland may be something similar, but...
"In recent years, we've however had some businessmen import seasonal workers from low-wage countries such as Thailand to pick berries. The businessmen are making a living, and it might be possible that the law with respect to berries might change, if berry-picking turns out to be profitable this way. On the other hand, our social democratic overlords see that kind of business as exploiting the poor, and there's no evidence of huge profits being made there, so we'll likely keep our laws for the foreseeable future."
In my opinion, you are whistling in the dark. Someone ALWAYS manages to spoil a good thing.
You are missing the point - the parents weren't going against the husband's wishes, they were going against their DAUGHTER'S wishes. Terry CHOSE to leave her parents and give her trust to her husband. Terry's parents were, in efect, saying that Terry wasn't competent to make that decision then.
Do you belive that parents should make decisions regarding their children's marriage choices against their children's will? Should Terry's parents have had the ability to file for divorce for Terry prior to her illness as well?
Terry chose her husband to make the decisions he did. She could have stayed unmarried, but she CHOSE!
And her parents shit all over that.
"Otherwise he could simply have divorced her and moved on with his life."
No, he couldn't.
Terry was legally incompetent to participaet in divorce (or any other) proceedings. Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal - just have her legal guardian represent her. Problem - her legal guardian was Mark. Mark couldn't try to divorce her - he'd be representing her against himself. It only became an "option" when her parents "offered" to take over her guardianship in a quid pro quo - he relinquishes his responsibility to his wife in return for not contresting a divorce.
Mark was Terry's legal guardian because she CHOSE it before she died, by marrying him. Her parents couldn't (and probably still can't) get that through their heads. They went to desperate lengths to override their daughter's wishes, denying her the very autonomy and choice she had made previously. She chose to leave them and put her care into the hands of another. Mark did the same thing - it's called marriage.
Mark discharged his responsibilities to his wife. Why couldn't her parents accept that?
But that's OK to Western environmental types - only brown people are dying.
And DON'T tell me that race has nothing to do with it. If this was happening in Western Europe or the US they'd bring back Agent Orange.
"Or do you just mean to say that faking Scientific results is okay as long as your heart is in the right place?"
Google on "bone marrow transplant breast cancer faked study"
Yes, it's perfectly acceptable until you get caught.
Add one more idea and the simile is better - toll roads.
When UPS uses the PA turnpike to transport packages, they pay for the use on a per/mile, per axle basis - in other words, proportional to the load.
Imagine if Newegg started getting billed by the Turnpike Commission because they are such "heavy users". They would nbe saying that UPS just pays for the trucks to cross the state, while the shipper must pay for the product to cross the state.
Just because the record labels don't bolt doesn't mean they are in bed with Jobs. It is entirely possible to despise someone and still work with them - it's called real life.
The labels may be greedy, manipulative, evil, whatever, but they are not stupid. Prior to iTunes, the labels weren't making a dime off Internet based distribution. Oh, they could see it was happening, but they couldn't really touch it, except for token lawsuits and lobbying. ITunes gave them a way to make some money off the phenomenon. Do they still want to make ALL of the money? You bet, and that's why they dislike Steve-o. But they are not going to walk away from a lot of money (over 50%) for no money.
Think of it another way:
1 label leaves - the other three laugh all the way to the bank as their sales increase and the wayward label's stuff gets downloaded anyway, for free.
All the labels leave - wham - antitrust suit. Remember, these guys can't NOT collude - that's what the RIAA is for.
I won't say Jobs is a saint - he may be Beelzebub to RIAA's Lucifer - but the saying goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Right here, right now, Steve Jobs is our friend.
"simple solution to typo-squatting...learning to splel."
Comic GENIUS! Where are my mod ponts....
Humans are a disease of the planetary organism, blahblahblah. Whatever.
I didn't RTFA so somebody read it and tell me if I'm right.
2 points:
1) Go for the "unconscionable clause" arguement - the clause is so broad and powerful it would be against the public interest to allow its enforcement.
2) "Reproduction and distribution under any medium". Argue that the labels aren't distributing via a medium - they are distributing the data itself, sans medium. The contracts contemplate distribution of a physical object with the music encoded. Where is the physical object? The wires? No, the labels aren't distributing them. (OK, this one is a reach, but it's inline with the arguement they are making now.)
specifically, assert that the major labels have NO right to distribute songs electronically. Prior to 2002, electronic distribution wasn't a blip on the radar screen. If the artists can argue that it is impossible to sign over distribution rights for a method that didn't exist when the contract is signed, then the rights devolve to the original copyright holder. that means the artists could cut deals with Apple directly and cut the RIAA members out completely.
If they can get a legal team with big enough balls, and the right judge, it could happen.
"Burglars couldn't get into your house if you had no doors or windows"
Technically, that's incorrect.
Current exterior wall construction for a large portion of the housing market consists of (from the outside-in)vinyl siding, Tyvek vapor barrier, a fibrous type sheathing (sometimes no more than 1/8" thick cardboard), glass fiber insulation, and gypsum wallboard. All of these material are easily cut with a $1.99 utility knife.
You can get into most houses these days with a knife and 5 minutes by going right through the wall.
The first time I heard the sound was the first run of "Die Hard" in a brand new theater. they started with closing the curtain, and sloooowly opening it accompanied by the sound. In the awed silence thast followed, I said loudly and distinctly "Big deal!".
My date was mortified; still got laid, though.
"If a paper application was reviewd by a person, pray tell, how does that differ from an electronic application being reviewd by a person? "
It eliminates the initial human filter. It is entirely too easy for a manager to say to a black applicant "we're not hiring" or "we've run out of applications". A kiosk won't do that. Can there be discrimination later? Sure, but now it's easier to prove - the application exists in the system.
"I assume that a human probably wrote the software, so if you want to argue against bias, there's always a way to prove that some form of human bias exists"
Theoretically true, but the software for the HR apps are provided by a 3rd party, who's interest is in providing the fairest software they can. That contractor will inevitably be dragged into an EEO case, and their only defense is to be able to say "My software does not discriminate" and eb able to PROVE it. I sincerely doubt that there are "-nigger,-kike,-mackeral_snapper" command line options.