Fair enough. I think you might have been lamenting more specifics then technical aspects -- i.e. we all learned how to malloc/free, but we didn't learn System.Windows.Forms. As an aside, I don't think you payed attention in OS, since Arvind DID talk about a number of coding orienting things. Because otherwise NACHOS was a giant, miserable, black hole. Also, I'm guessing you didn't take Compilers?
I realize that you have never read a single treatise on Tort law and are just pulling things out of your ass; I am attempting to explain to you how strict products liability works. In your now-revised hypo, then no, they couldn't use the email as to liability. If the email said "gee, the only way someone could EVER get hurt was if they did this ridiculously absurd and IMPOSSIBLE thing" and the thing was indeed absurd, they wouldn't recover. But otherwise, the injury WAS foreseeable. Your hypo just changed. If you'd like, I can try to explain this to you offline, but considering I've actually gone to law school and you're already giving me the "legal reasoning like you present is blah blah blah." Just because you don't understand 500 years of common law doesn't mean it's wrong.
When did you go to Yale? I'm sorry, but I call BS. There's no way you made it through 223/323 under SCE's tenure with that attitude. Unless you're a certain female '03 graduate who got the boys to do her homework. (And then went into investment banking, so I doubt she'd be on/.) Last I checked, it was STRONG on theory, but VERY STRONG on the coding fundamentals.
No way you'd make it through 422 without the C skills from 223/323.....
Yeah, because Julie Dorsey left MIT because Yale's program was so atrocious. Andreas Savvides and Yiorgos Makris clearly had no better offers. Michael Fischer, as in, Fischer-Lynch-Patterson. [If you do not know what FLP impossibility/paxos consensus are, I'm willing to write you off as unqualified to posit on this topic at all.] Joan Feigenbaum. Avi fucking Silberschatz. The program at Yale is incredible.
Ok, if you'll ignore Paul Hudak and his love of Haskell.
And yes JLO, I'm going back to studying so don't yell at me. I needed a break.
avging 75% on barbri studysmart qs. am more worried about ny essays and ny multiple choice. MPT will be a breeze. (and just picked up a PMBR book today) -- blue or red? (these are old pre-lawsuit pmbr)
You missed the point of my post entirely. The presumption is used to DEFEAT a credible witness. Example: Employment disputes. Ex-employee Y says that certain things were done via email. Employer (who has an infinite retention policy) can create a rebuttable presumption that the email does not exist by merely signing an affidavit that they searched for the email (using plaintiff-supplied keywords) and it did not show up. The only way the plaintiff (ex-employee) can now win is by producing the email itself. (which of course, s/he cant)
Having gone to law school, I'd like to point out that you're "-1, factually incorrect." Possession is not 9/10 of the law. You can make a practical argument or a functional argument, but not a legal one, since obviously your knowledge of the actual law is simply wrong. Good day sir.
This is why some investment banks save everything. They create a rebuttable presumption that if they don't have it, it doesn't exist. (Often helpful when the other side alleges there is a "smoking gun")
I know you don't care, but if someone high up wrote that email, it indicates that the use of the webelfetzer 1000 in the shower while hopping up and down on one foot was foreseeable. And that's the whole damned POINT. Otherwise, you sue the company and lose. Ok, i'm going to go back to studying for the bar, but you've got it ass backwards. [as an aside: treble damages, not double damages, and your factual scenario would not support them]
We should have let bear turn into a smouldering ruin, told lehman to go fuck themselves and closed the discount window. repeal GLB and let the greedy fucks die.
Because you don't understand the difference between venue and jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is a big deal. Venue, by comparison, is not. Under our rules, unless there's good cause, venue is plaintiff's choice (if there is more than one proper venue.) It's not that judges are cranky, but if venue is appropriate in more than one place, it's plaintiff's right.
Wait, seriously? Doesn't everyone learn the myth about Riemann in kindergarten (1+611)/2 * (611/2) = 218791. But seriously -- how would one get in touch with you?
You are incorrect. If the legislature uses "magic words" that were defined at common law, the legislature INCORPORATES those common law principles UNLESS the legislature SPECIFICALLY (and intentionally) abrogates the common law definitions by defining new ones.
See e.g. Wells v US, Neder v. US, and any extortion cases (e.g. Sun Diamond)
Illegal? Under Delaware corporate law at least, a company's charter can be whatever it wants. If a company wants to incorporate into its charter that it MUST tithe, that's perfectly fine. Corporate donations (and social spending, i.e. on employees, the community) are far from illegal, they are encouraged (or perhaps even mandatory.) See e.g. AP Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow, 13. NJ 145 (1953). [Since you obviously don't know "the law" -- Delaware's corporate law is basically a copy of Jersey's, with lower fees.]
Clearly, you've never heard of the Business Judgment Rule. Please don't opine on the law if you don't know it.
thanks.
Since Vosburg v Putney, juries have done what they pleased. I can find just as many Wexis examples of you being spot wrong -- but you yourself admitted that "it isn't likely" -- JNOV/JMOL does indeed derive from common law; otherwise a judge has no authority to set aside a state law JURY verdict. Which is why JMOL motions must be made BEFORE a verdict is reached in most jurisdictions; otherwise the judge is disregarding a jury verdict. (JNOV). Failing to make a jmol motion before the verdict comes in will assure you no chance of even a new trial.
There is no federal common law; even if the suit is removed, they still apply the law of the state. The right to jury trial persists, and since very few states do not permit certified questions, there are few, if any, unguided Erie choices. It still must go before a jury, even in federal court. JNOV/JMOL are easily grounds for appeal. And actually, if you're quoting frcp 50, Hand *does* matter since basically the only theory under which a judge can (without almost assuring overturn on appeal) set aside on tort is that the jury did not apply BPL correctly, i.e. the hand formula..... How long ago was first year civ pro and torts?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. I think you might have been lamenting more specifics then technical aspects -- i.e. we all learned how to malloc/free, but we didn't learn System.Windows.Forms. As an aside, I don't think you payed attention in OS, since Arvind DID talk about a number of coding orienting things. Because otherwise NACHOS was a giant, miserable, black hole. Also, I'm guessing you didn't take Compilers?
I realize that you have never read a single treatise on Tort law and are just pulling things out of your ass; I am attempting to explain to you how strict products liability works. In your now-revised hypo, then no, they couldn't use the email as to liability. If the email said "gee, the only way someone could EVER get hurt was if they did this ridiculously absurd and IMPOSSIBLE thing" and the thing was indeed absurd, they wouldn't recover. But otherwise, the injury WAS foreseeable. Your hypo just changed. If you'd like, I can try to explain this to you offline, but considering I've actually gone to law school and you're already giving me the "legal reasoning like you present is blah blah blah." Just because you don't understand 500 years of common law doesn't mean it's wrong.
When did you go to Yale? I'm sorry, but I call BS. There's no way you made it through 223/323 under SCE's tenure with that attitude. Unless you're a certain female '03 graduate who got the boys to do her homework. (And then went into investment banking, so I doubt she'd be on /.) Last I checked, it was STRONG on theory, but VERY STRONG on the coding fundamentals.
No way you'd make it through 422 without the C skills from 223/323.....
Yeah, because Julie Dorsey left MIT because Yale's program was so atrocious. Andreas Savvides and Yiorgos Makris clearly had no better offers. Michael Fischer, as in, Fischer-Lynch-Patterson. [If you do not know what FLP impossibility/paxos consensus are, I'm willing to write you off as unqualified to posit on this topic at all.] Joan Feigenbaum. Avi fucking Silberschatz. The program at Yale is incredible.
Ok, if you'll ignore Paul Hudak and his love of Haskell.
And yes JLO, I'm going back to studying so don't yell at me. I needed a break.
Stan Eisenstat ftw. "Strings are hard."
avging 75% on barbri studysmart qs. am more worried about ny essays and ny multiple choice. MPT will be a breeze. (and just picked up a PMBR book today) -- blue or red? (these are old pre-lawsuit pmbr)
You missed the point of my post entirely. The presumption is used to DEFEAT a credible witness. Example: Employment disputes. Ex-employee Y says that certain things were done via email. Employer (who has an infinite retention policy) can create a rebuttable presumption that the email does not exist by merely signing an affidavit that they searched for the email (using plaintiff-supplied keywords) and it did not show up. The only way the plaintiff (ex-employee) can now win is by producing the email itself. (which of course, s/he cant)
Having gone to law school, I'd like to point out that you're "-1, factually incorrect." Possession is not 9/10 of the law. You can make a practical argument or a functional argument, but not a legal one, since obviously your knowledge of the actual law is simply wrong. Good day sir.
This is why some investment banks save everything. They create a rebuttable presumption that if they don't have it, it doesn't exist. (Often helpful when the other side alleges there is a "smoking gun")
I know you don't care, but if someone high up wrote that email, it indicates that the use of the webelfetzer 1000 in the shower while hopping up and down on one foot was foreseeable. And that's the whole damned POINT. Otherwise, you sue the company and lose. Ok, i'm going to go back to studying for the bar, but you've got it ass backwards. [as an aside: treble damages, not double damages, and your factual scenario would not support them]
Unless prince's licensing with radiohead was explicit. Which from TFA, it appears to have been.
We should have let bear turn into a smouldering ruin, told lehman to go fuck themselves and closed the discount window. repeal GLB and let the greedy fucks die.
No. It will just make the trolling take longer. One of the advantages with the rocket docket was getting wholly specious claims dismissed expediently.
When you file an amicus brief.
Because you don't understand the difference between venue and jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is a big deal. Venue, by comparison, is not. Under our rules, unless there's good cause, venue is plaintiff's choice (if there is more than one proper venue.) It's not that judges are cranky, but if venue is appropriate in more than one place, it's plaintiff's right.
Wait, seriously? Doesn't everyone learn the myth about Riemann in kindergarten (1+611)/2 * (611/2) = 218791. But seriously -- how would one get in touch with you?
You are incorrect. If the legislature uses "magic words" that were defined at common law, the legislature INCORPORATES those common law principles UNLESS the legislature SPECIFICALLY (and intentionally) abrogates the common law definitions by defining new ones. See e.g. Wells v US, Neder v. US, and any extortion cases (e.g. Sun Diamond)
Illegal? Under Delaware corporate law at least, a company's charter can be whatever it wants. If a company wants to incorporate into its charter that it MUST tithe, that's perfectly fine. Corporate donations (and social spending, i.e. on employees, the community) are far from illegal, they are encouraged (or perhaps even mandatory.) See e.g. AP Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow, 13. NJ 145 (1953). [Since you obviously don't know "the law" -- Delaware's corporate law is basically a copy of Jersey's, with lower fees.] Clearly, you've never heard of the Business Judgment Rule. Please don't opine on the law if you don't know it. thanks.
The laws OP is talking about are strict liability. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or by accident.
The right of first sale has been a thorn in the industry's side for years....
checkout iTerm. http://iterm.sourceforge.net/
enjoy. -b
Never trust anyone from a state with corners.
from duggmirror: http://www.duggmirror.com/apple/Full_Mac_OS_X_runn ing_on_Apple_TV/
Since Vosburg v Putney, juries have done what they pleased. I can find just as many Wexis examples of you being spot wrong -- but you yourself admitted that "it isn't likely" -- JNOV/JMOL does indeed derive from common law; otherwise a judge has no authority to set aside a state law JURY verdict. Which is why JMOL motions must be made BEFORE a verdict is reached in most jurisdictions; otherwise the judge is disregarding a jury verdict. (JNOV). Failing to make a jmol motion before the verdict comes in will assure you no chance of even a new trial.
There is no federal common law; even if the suit is removed, they still apply the law of the state. The right to jury trial persists, and since very few states do not permit certified questions, there are few, if any, unguided Erie choices. It still must go before a jury, even in federal court. JNOV/JMOL are easily grounds for appeal. And actually, if you're quoting frcp 50, Hand *does* matter since basically the only theory under which a judge can (without almost assuring overturn on appeal) set aside on tort is that the jury did not apply BPL correctly, i.e. the hand formula. .... How long ago was first year civ pro and torts?