Note: Here that argument doesn't work, as it would be cheaper to watch on the affiliate station (i.e. free) than to buy the show from iTMS. ABC/Apple are taking the high hanging fruit only.
ProCD v Zeidenberg. Besides, Softman is CD Cal 01. You're better off referencing Vault v Quaid -- but that deals with reverse engineering. Furthermore, Softman deals with a distributor -- not an end user -- specifically the one that runs buycheapsoftware.com. Clickwrap/Shrinkwrap are valid, and as such, they enforce terms upon useage for end users. [I'm not saying this is a good thing.] Also, Softman is primarily about bundling of "Adobe Collections" and Adobe's trademarks. Also, in Adobe V Stargate [216 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (D. Cal. 2002)] the court explicitly passes on using Softman as precedent. A little Shepardizing never hurt anyone. If we're looking to be pedantic, we could reference Davidson v Internet Gateway, Specht v Netscape, Hughes v. McMenamon, et cetera ad infinitum.
So far it is the best way I've found of slamming x11 connections through ANYTHING. Previously I used to have to port-forward 6000-6004 manually...
But I agree with you 100%. SSH != Kerberized Telnet...
The cartridges in question are DISCOUNTED so that you return them to lexmark. You have the option of buying a NON-MARKED cartridge which is more expensive that you are free to do with as you please. If the option to buy the full-price cartridge didn't exist, this opinion might have gone differently -- but the contract with Lexmark is valid because they're giving consideration. (Lexmark is reducing the price of the cartridge in exchange for specific performance -- the return of that cartridge to lexmark.)
This lawsuit is a bunch of COMMERCIAL cartridge-refilling companies suing lexmark -- not an end user.
I'm sorry you feel that way -- about someone you've never met. In the scenario you paint, one could invite an enemy into one's home for a "truce" chat, shoot them, and then go kick the door in and call the police -- claiming that they'd broken in. I can assure you this is contrary to the way things work in the 50 states and federal courts for which I've been able to look at the case law. The spirit of the law is hammurabi's code -- you cannot take a human life unless you are in fear of your life being taken. You are the one violating the spirit of the law by saying that if someone trespasses your property, they're "as good as dead." You are a self styled judge, jury and executioner. What if the person was intoxicated and trying to get into a friend's party, and went to the wrong street? In a land that the spirit of the law is to let 100 guilty go free rather than to let one innocent go to jail, the spirit of the law is to preserve life whenever possible -- on the off chance that the person you're killing is there for some other mistaken purpose. I don't know if you've ever shot someone, but I did ask the brother of a friend of mine, a police officer on a homicide squad, about your scenario. Perhaps this is anecdotal, but his opinion (which I consider to be an informed one) is that any deaths of unarmed persons are investigated quite fully in the circumstances we've generally discussed.
Finally, your statement that "if they let themselves in....they have *wrongful intent*...and deserve anything that happens to them up to and including death" is just flat out wrong. Wrongful intent includes the intent to steal. If someone is stealing from you, you have no right to kill them. You may not be held accountable for killing them -- under VERY limited circumstances.
The statement that "...it doesn't matter what the individuals thoughts or reasonings were behind their decision to illegally enter....once they've taken that action, anything done in defense...is reasonable" is just completely false. No court, police officer or Bar-accredited lawyer in the United States will agree with that statement.
Let's suppose someone breaks into your home on the second story and falls to the floor, breaking his leg, rendering him unable to walk. He is bleeding profusely and passes out. If you walk up to him and shoot him in the face, you will be charged and almost certainly convicted with murder. If you see him and leave him there to die, and the cops can prove (via testimony, perhaps of your children -- or maybe of a neighbor that rushed to the window) that you took no action, you'll get depraved indifference. I don't know where you have this idea that human life is so easily taken.
In the alternate, let us imagine that you have a house with an adjoined garage -- with no access from the house to the garage. You hear someone break into the garage and attempting to hotwire your car. You go get your firearm, go down the stairs of your house, open the door, walk to the adjoining garage and shoot him. The police will not just "write some notes" and leave. I have no idea how you came to believe this, but the American Justice System does not regard human life as equitable retribution for trespass!
I am by no means a "money grubbing" lawyer -- and I find it funny that you brought up the MPAA/RIAA. One of the pro-bono activities I'll be doing in law school is providing free legal assistance to people that recieve DMCA takedown notices and MPAA/RIAA subpoenas.
Again, if you're 100% sure that I'm wrong, I'm really willing to listen -- just let me know where you live and I'll look up the relevant local statues/court decisions. I've checked the 50 states and found very little (almost nothing) to support the assertion that once someone enters your home you are granted a green light "shoot at will, shoot to kill."
What jurisdiction is this? I checked Lexis and Westlaw and found almost nothing, asked three other people and everyone I've spoken to seems to disagree. My earlier hypothetical was that someone has broken into your house, robbed you, and has now LEFT your house. You run out your front door and shoot them (in the back) as they flee. Now extend this to they're in your front hallway on their way out the door, etc.
You *cannot* lay deadly traps for someone breaking into your home. e.g. if you have a window and put a pit of spikes under it so that a robber breaking in will be impaled, you're exposing yourself to liability. Unless you're in some bizarre Ames-like country that is outside US jurisdiction, in which place you should have said so long ago. Please elucidate me -- if you are being truthful (and you are correctly informed) I'd really love to read up on some of the decisions/penal code from your area -- it would be really helpful to have around. Thanks
Stop using "you" in the plural sense when you mean "one." It is confusing and ambiguous. *I* have no intention of breaking into anyone's home. That is why you confused me. As a secondary note, IANALY. My head isn't in my ass. They don't have to read your mind -- the courts have a definition of a "reasonable person." Let's say you have a home security closed circuit video camera installed in your house -- you SEE an intruder break in, SEE that he is unarmed, and as he's leaving your house with some of your propery, you shoot him in the back. Of course, he's dead, but your life is ruined in most jurisdictions. This was my point.
Also, about your point about mind reading, you can testify all you want that "You didn't know what the intentions were" but if a box full of 12 people agree that they think you erred, you're SOL. IAALS.
I really have no intention of entering your premises whatsoever. I don't know why you felt the need to respond, nor do I see any point to your comment, since I obviously live in a place that is quite different from the place you live in. My original rule was to correct a fallacy -- even in the presence of the castle doctrine, you must have a reasonable belief that you're in mortal danger -- not of merely being attacked, but of being killed, to respond with lethal force. If you kill an intruder with a gun and the police find him/her unarmed, you may be in for some trouble.
If you would like, I can get you some case law from your jurisdiction...
...and if there is an ADA that is looking for a promotion, s/he looks to knock some holes into your "reasonable belief" and then you find yourself on manslaughter charges.
You cannot "fend off looters" unless you have reasonable belief that you are in mortal danger. If you discharge a firearm in any fashion to stop such looting, you'll be hard put to use self defense as you've responded with ostensibly deadly force. (If you fire into the air and the bullet goes through a window, you'll have to pay, etc)
The plugins seem to have very similar functionality to the Konfabulator/Dashboard widgets that are popular as of late. (Check your gmail, control itunes, et cetera) Instead of running them along the bottom or top, they're merely fixed to the side...
Apologies for the double post -- I realized I left this out. You're referring to a Veblen Good with the "CEO wanting to claim they bought the most expensive solution..."
I'm afraid that isn't what a Giffen Good is. You're correct in that it has a similar price/demand curve (price goes up, demand goes up -- and the reverse) but Giffen goods are meant to be inferior quality goods, e.g. bread in lieu of meat or fruit. The canonical example is that the rising price of the basic staple, bread, forces families to abandon buying fruits and meats, since they are more expensive foods. However, they must now buy more bread to supplement their diet. Price has gone up, but so does their need for bread, since they can no longer afford to purchase non-bread foods.
I'm not usually one for ontological arguments, but in this case....Windows was designed from the ground-up as a single user system. OS X was not. I would agree with you that OS X is not superior in "every aspect" but I wouldn't say that the rest is at most, a wash.
Slashdot Mirror
it's the frickin zwilniks. ...but they'll be gone in a flash of primaries.
qx, over and out
Note: Here that argument doesn't work, as it would be cheaper to watch on the affiliate station (i.e. free) than to buy the show from iTMS. ABC/Apple are taking the high hanging fruit only.
ProCD v Zeidenberg. Besides, Softman is CD Cal 01. You're better off referencing Vault v Quaid -- but that deals with reverse engineering. Furthermore, Softman deals with a distributor -- not an end user -- specifically the one that runs buycheapsoftware.com. Clickwrap/Shrinkwrap are valid, and as such, they enforce terms upon useage for end users. [I'm not saying this is a good thing.] Also, Softman is primarily about bundling of "Adobe Collections" and Adobe's trademarks. Also, in Adobe V Stargate [216 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (D. Cal. 2002)] the court explicitly passes on using Softman as precedent. A little Shepardizing never hurt anyone. If we're looking to be pedantic, we could reference Davidson v Internet Gateway, Specht v Netscape, Hughes v. McMenamon, et cetera ad infinitum.
To use the compact disc logo, you must meet the appropriate spec. Check your local "protected" cd. It doesn't have the logo.
So far it is the best way I've found of slamming x11 connections through ANYTHING. Previously I used to have to port-forward 6000-6004 manually... But I agree with you 100%. SSH != Kerberized Telnet...
Variables! Heathen! Loops? Sloth! Tail recursion? Vanity!
Google's official birthday is September 7th.... (Link is to Google Cache. Otherwise, first hit for "google birthday" and check the cache.....)
Oh boy.
I am one of the artists behind the Oprah Winfrey page -- although it has had numerous authors. Glad you liked it. :)
For another good laugh (not mine) check out the UC pages - especially UC Davis/UC Irvine.
The cartridges in question are DISCOUNTED so that you return them to lexmark. You have the option of buying a NON-MARKED cartridge which is more expensive that you are free to do with as you please. If the option to buy the full-price cartridge didn't exist, this opinion might have gone differently -- but the contract with Lexmark is valid because they're giving consideration. (Lexmark is reducing the price of the cartridge in exchange for specific performance -- the return of that cartridge to lexmark.)
This lawsuit is a bunch of COMMERCIAL cartridge-refilling companies suing lexmark -- not an end user.
Genie Grants Scalia Strict Constructionist Interpretation Of Wish for the win. :)
I'm sorry you feel that way -- about someone you've never met. In the scenario you paint, one could invite an enemy into one's home for a "truce" chat, shoot them, and then go kick the door in and call the police -- claiming that they'd broken in. I can assure you this is contrary to the way things work in the 50 states and federal courts for which I've been able to look at the case law. The spirit of the law is hammurabi's code -- you cannot take a human life unless you are in fear of your life being taken. You are the one violating the spirit of the law by saying that if someone trespasses your property, they're "as good as dead." You are a self styled judge, jury and executioner. What if the person was intoxicated and trying to get into a friend's party, and went to the wrong street? In a land that the spirit of the law is to let 100 guilty go free rather than to let one innocent go to jail, the spirit of the law is to preserve life whenever possible -- on the off chance that the person you're killing is there for some other mistaken purpose. I don't know if you've ever shot someone, but I did ask the brother of a friend of mine, a police officer on a homicide squad, about your scenario. Perhaps this is anecdotal, but his opinion (which I consider to be an informed one) is that any deaths of unarmed persons are investigated quite fully in the circumstances we've generally discussed.
Finally, your statement that "if they let themselves in....they have *wrongful intent*...and deserve anything that happens to them up to and including death" is just flat out wrong. Wrongful intent includes the intent to steal. If someone is stealing from you, you have no right to kill them. You may not be held accountable for killing them -- under VERY limited circumstances.
The statement that "...it doesn't matter what the individuals thoughts or reasonings were behind their decision to illegally enter....once they've taken that action, anything done in defense...is reasonable" is just completely false. No court, police officer or Bar-accredited lawyer in the United States will agree with that statement.
Let's suppose someone breaks into your home on the second story and falls to the floor, breaking his leg, rendering him unable to walk. He is bleeding profusely and passes out. If you walk up to him and shoot him in the face, you will be charged and almost certainly convicted with murder. If you see him and leave him there to die, and the cops can prove (via testimony, perhaps of your children -- or maybe of a neighbor that rushed to the window) that you took no action, you'll get depraved indifference. I don't know where you have this idea that human life is so easily taken.
In the alternate, let us imagine that you have a house with an adjoined garage -- with no access from the house to the garage. You hear someone break into the garage and attempting to hotwire your car. You go get your firearm, go down the stairs of your house, open the door, walk to the adjoining garage and shoot him. The police will not just "write some notes" and leave. I have no idea how you came to believe this, but the American Justice System does not regard human life as equitable retribution for trespass!
I am by no means a "money grubbing" lawyer -- and I find it funny that you brought up the MPAA/RIAA. One of the pro-bono activities I'll be doing in law school is providing free legal assistance to people that recieve DMCA takedown notices and MPAA/RIAA subpoenas.
Again, if you're 100% sure that I'm wrong, I'm really willing to listen -- just let me know where you live and I'll look up the relevant local statues/court decisions. I've checked the 50 states and found very little (almost nothing) to support the assertion that once someone enters your home you are granted a green light "shoot at will, shoot to kill."
What jurisdiction is this? I checked Lexis and Westlaw and found almost nothing, asked three other people and everyone I've spoken to seems to disagree. My earlier hypothetical was that someone has broken into your house, robbed you, and has now LEFT your house. You run out your front door and shoot them (in the back) as they flee. Now extend this to they're in your front hallway on their way out the door, etc.
You *cannot* lay deadly traps for someone breaking into your home. e.g. if you have a window and put a pit of spikes under it so that a robber breaking in will be impaled, you're exposing yourself to liability. Unless you're in some bizarre Ames-like country that is outside US jurisdiction, in which place you should have said so long ago. Please elucidate me -- if you are being truthful (and you are correctly informed) I'd really love to read up on some of the decisions/penal code from your area -- it would be really helpful to have around. Thanks
Stop using "you" in the plural sense when you mean "one." It is confusing and ambiguous. *I* have no intention of breaking into anyone's home. That is why you confused me. As a secondary note, IANALY. My head isn't in my ass. They don't have to read your mind -- the courts have a definition of a "reasonable person." Let's say you have a home security closed circuit video camera installed in your house -- you SEE an intruder break in, SEE that he is unarmed, and as he's leaving your house with some of your propery, you shoot him in the back. Of course, he's dead, but your life is ruined in most jurisdictions. This was my point.
Also, about your point about mind reading, you can testify all you want that "You didn't know what the intentions were" but if a box full of 12 people agree that they think you erred, you're SOL. IAALS.
I really have no intention of entering your premises whatsoever. I don't know why you felt the need to respond, nor do I see any point to your comment, since I obviously live in a place that is quite different from the place you live in. My original rule was to correct a fallacy -- even in the presence of the castle doctrine, you must have a reasonable belief that you're in mortal danger -- not of merely being attacked, but of being killed, to respond with lethal force. If you kill an intruder with a gun and the police find him/her unarmed, you may be in for some trouble.
If you would like, I can get you some case law from your jurisdiction...
...and if there is an ADA that is looking for a promotion, s/he looks to knock some holes into your "reasonable belief" and then you find yourself on manslaughter charges.
You cannot "fend off looters" unless you have reasonable belief that you are in mortal danger. If you discharge a firearm in any fashion to stop such looting, you'll be hard put to use self defense as you've responded with ostensibly deadly force. (If you fire into the air and the bullet goes through a window, you'll have to pay, etc)
For anyone looking on an interesting read about stats (that is actually accurate) check out the Birthday Paradox.
The whole "good chance that the same artist will come up in the next 50 songs" is actually the same type of math as the Birthday Paradox. (larger set)
The plugins seem to have very similar functionality to the Konfabulator/Dashboard widgets that are popular as of late. (Check your gmail, control itunes, et cetera) Instead of running them along the bottom or top, they're merely fixed to the side...
In all fairness...
My haftorah was the sending of spies into Caanan.
But with that being said....
Anyone that demands Israel return any land from a war should also be for the return of the Falkland Islands to Argentina....
Apologies for the double post -- I realized I left this out. You're referring to a Veblen Good with the "CEO wanting to claim they bought the most expensive solution..."
cheers
-b
I'm afraid that isn't what a Giffen Good is. You're correct in that it has a similar price/demand curve (price goes up, demand goes up -- and the reverse) but Giffen goods are meant to be inferior quality goods, e.g. bread in lieu of meat or fruit. The canonical example is that the rising price of the basic staple, bread, forces families to abandon buying fruits and meats, since they are more expensive foods. However, they must now buy more bread to supplement their diet. Price has gone up, but so does their need for bread, since they can no longer afford to purchase non-bread foods.
What about security?
I'm not usually one for ontological arguments, but in this case....Windows was designed from the ground-up as a single user system. OS X was not. I would agree with you that OS X is not superior in "every aspect" but I wouldn't say that the rest is at most, a wash.
This humor attempted without a net.
Annette/? What does SHE have to do with it?