In most of my web development work it's always been the client that sets the standard. There have been some clients that have said "Support IE6 and beyond" (/cringe) and others that have more reasonable standards, e.g. IE7+, Firefox 3.5+, Chrome 9+
Whats wrong with the stakeout, waiting and watching until they leave the house and you nab them on the sidewalk. Or is this not exciting enough for the C.O.P.S generation?
From TFA Lodsys attempts to rationalize it by saying:
Many industries study the IP landscape prior to releasing a product or service and either design around or acquire necessary patent rights if they need them to do their solution. Usually these industries have significant capital at risk to build and/or market, so they have an economic rationale to invest resources up front to understand and clear IP rights. Oil companies do not drill on land where they don’t have the rights. Movies aren’t released that don’t clear all the music rights. Clothing manufacturers license logos from Disney or the NFL to include them in their product.
Historically, the tech industry did not clear patent rights in advance because the amount of time and effort to do so made no economic sense given the relative low cost to create software and the speed at which products were being released so a norm has arisen where it’s build and ship now, and worry about clearing the patent rights later.
So, if I am reading this correctly, they argue that because:
1) Oil companies secure mineral rights before drilling
2) Movie production companies secure the appropriate copyrights for music
3) Clothing manufactures clear the respective trademark before pressing an image
Software developers aught wade through the nebulous waters of software patents to secure any and all licenses which may or may not have anything remotely to do with the software they plan to ship.
Armed USPS inspectors raided the company’s Atlanta headquarters to determine whether or not the letters the company had been sending via FedEx were indeed “extremely urgent” as required by the Private Express Statutes. The letters didn’t pass the test, and Equifax ended up having to pay a $30,000 fine.
Environmentalists have a bad name because the industries that are doing all the damage find character assassination easier than actually cleaning up their mess.
SCOTUS ruled that use of public roadways is public knowledge and legal without a warrant, including the use of GPS tracking units on your "private" vehicle. Their ruling is that when driving on a public roadway, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy as to your travelling.
Nope, SCOTUS has never ruled on the requirement or lack there of in obtaining a warrant to utilize a GPS tracking device on a private vehicle. More specifically, the circuit courts are split on this topic with the D.C Circuit court in Commonwealth v. Connolly mandating a warrant and the Ninth in USA v. Juan Pineda-Moreno writing carte-blanche to track anyone anywhere.
But perhaps you are confused with USA v. Knotts in that SCOTUS did decided that the monitoring of a pager embed in a barrel of chemicals that the defendant was using to manufacture methanphetamines was A-ok. The DC courts did take this SCOTUS decision into account and came back with a decision that a pager was only good for a day or two max, but the GPS machines could last for months.
Now, searching inside the vehicle, that's a different question. And what if the camera takes a picture through your windows?
Yes, indeed a search of a vehicle is a different topic all together. However, the plain view doctrine would most definitely allow pictures that reveal the contents of your vehicle from a vantage point outside into the court of law.
Just wait until the RIAA/MPAA catches wind of this ruling.
Soon they will be distributing all media from an offshore shipper to impose a "no resale" exemption on the media effectively shutting down all rental agencies.
Considering the nature of the Interstate Commerce clause and the feds taking action on everything through it, Yes regulation of Comcast could come into play. But probably not due to their significant campaign contributions.
They raised your taxes, then gave certain people a tax break if you qualify. You choose NOT to qualify. They have not in any interfered in your transaction.
Can you tell me precisely how this passes muster in regards to article 1 section 8 or 9; or the Sixteenth Amendment as ratified by the states?
I'll save you the trouble and answer the question for you.. You can't.
The taxation on a lack of a health care plan is, in legal parlance, what they call a direct tax. And this tax is required to be issued pro rata as to the census.
I don't think you will be able to fool the courts into believing that this taxation simply an inverted rebate. Frankly, the courts are extraordinarily keen on pointing out that if it looks, swims, walks, quacks like a duck it's a damn duck.
"... even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
It does not matter if the commerce happens completely within the boundaries of the state, only so long as the activity has an effect on interstate commerce congress can legislate it.
Now what constitutes effect, how much effect on interstate commerce is necessary for it to land under interstate commerce clause has been argued (see US v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr), But I would say that if arguing on the merits that health insurance does not fall under the interstate commerce clause will ultimately fail. This is why the states are raising contest under the requirement to purchase and not solely on the legislations merits of necessary and proper.
go spin your lies to someone else. a cylinder is more sturdy than a box... simple physics, moron. thanks for confirming the frequency of tube damage.
Yes, but a cylinder also has the property of being able to roll with ease. When a package rolls, it inevitably finds itself lodged under other cylinders called tires. The crush weight of whatever may roll over your tube will be considerably larger than what it is rated at. Something like this box will ship better than any cylinder and something like this will fare even better.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but what standard?
In most of my web development work it's always been the client that sets the standard. There have been some clients that have said "Support IE6 and beyond" (/cringe) and others that have more reasonable standards, e.g. IE7+, Firefox 3.5+, Chrome 9+
IE7. If you can't do it with IE7, our clients don't want it. :(
Consider yourself lucky, I'm still stuck with supporting IE6. PNG overlays, forgettaboutit.
Whats wrong with the stakeout, waiting and watching until they leave the house and you nab them on the sidewalk. Or is this not exciting enough for the C.O.P.S generation?
It's not clear what eliminating the TSA would solve.
Ending Federally sanctioned sexual assault for starters.
Many industries study the IP landscape prior to releasing a product or service and either design around or acquire necessary patent rights if they need them to do their solution. Usually these industries have significant capital at risk to build and/or market, so they have an economic rationale to invest resources up front to understand and clear IP rights. Oil companies do not drill on land where they don’t have the rights. Movies aren’t released that don’t clear all the music rights. Clothing manufacturers license logos from Disney or the NFL to include them in their product. Historically, the tech industry did not clear patent rights in advance because the amount of time and effort to do so made no economic sense given the relative low cost to create software and the speed at which products were being released so a norm has arisen where it’s build and ship now, and worry about clearing the patent rights later.
So, if I am reading this correctly, they argue that because:
1) Oil companies secure mineral rights before drilling
2) Movie production companies secure the appropriate copyrights for music
3) Clothing manufactures clear the respective trademark before pressing an image
Software developers aught wade through the nebulous waters of software patents to secure any and all licenses which may or may not have anything remotely to do with the software they plan to ship.
Your search foo is weak
Because it performs a valuable service that there still isn't any combination of complete substittues for.
You mean a service that cannot legally be substituted for?
Armed USPS inspectors raided the company’s Atlanta headquarters to determine whether or not the letters the company had been sending via FedEx were indeed “extremely urgent” as required by the Private Express Statutes. The letters didn’t pass the test, and Equifax ended up having to pay a $30,000 fine.
Environmentalists have a bad name because the industries that are doing all the damage find character assassination easier than actually cleaning up their mess.
Rigggght.... It's all a big conspiracy against environmentalists perpetrated by the big bad corporations. Environmentalists have never done anything to damage their own character
SCOTUS ruled that use of public roadways is public knowledge and legal without a warrant, including the use of GPS tracking units on your "private" vehicle. Their ruling is that when driving on a public roadway, there is absolutely no expectation of privacy as to your travelling.
Nope, SCOTUS has never ruled on the requirement or lack there of in obtaining a warrant to utilize a GPS tracking device on a private vehicle. More specifically, the circuit courts are split on this topic with the D.C Circuit court in Commonwealth v. Connolly mandating a warrant and the Ninth in USA v. Juan Pineda-Moreno writing carte-blanche to track anyone anywhere.
But perhaps you are confused with USA v. Knotts in that SCOTUS did decided that the monitoring of a pager embed in a barrel of chemicals that the defendant was using to manufacture methanphetamines was A-ok. The DC courts did take this SCOTUS decision into account and came back with a decision that a pager was only good for a day or two max, but the GPS machines could last for months.
Now, searching inside the vehicle, that's a different question. And what if the camera takes a picture through your windows?
Yes, indeed a search of a vehicle is a different topic all together. However, the plain view doctrine would most definitely allow pictures that reveal the contents of your vehicle from a vantage point outside into the court of law.
From a practical, scientific view, does this make sense?
Not when your exclusive research source is Wikipedia.
Not to mention that when the temp dips down below -20c they break completely.
Try a congressional sub-committee, nothing valuable ever gets out of that.
Thats different because nothing of value is ever put in...
123 '); DROP TABLE Customers; --
Bearville North, MN 55723
Even easier with the democrat:
obama appoints riaa lawyer as solicitor general
Obama Picks New FTC Boss Former MPAA Lobbyist
Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept.
Obama Appoints RIAA Defense Lawyer to Key DOJ Position
He ought refer them to the reply given in Arkell vs. Pressdram (1971)
Thank you
Not if the "supplies" are a Lexus used to take the kids on a field trip once or twice a year.
[citation needed]
Those "drunk driving" statistics are often so loaded that what the actual data implies does not support the initial conclusion.
Just wait until the RIAA/MPAA catches wind of this ruling.
Soon they will be distributing all media from an offshore shipper to impose a "no resale" exemption on the media effectively shutting down all rental agencies.
Considering the nature of the Interstate Commerce clause and the feds taking action on everything through it, Yes regulation of Comcast could come into play. But probably not due to their significant campaign contributions.
I hope you don't mind but I fixed that for you.
They raised your taxes, then gave certain people a tax break if you qualify. You choose NOT to qualify. They have not in any interfered in your transaction.
Can you tell me precisely how this passes muster in regards to article 1 section 8 or 9; or the Sixteenth Amendment as ratified by the states?
.. You can't.
I'll save you the trouble and answer the question for you
The taxation on a lack of a health care plan is, in legal parlance, what they call a direct tax. And this tax is required to be issued pro rata as to the census.
I don't think you will be able to fool the courts into believing that this taxation simply an inverted rebate. Frankly, the courts are extraordinarily keen on pointing out that if it looks, swims, walks, quacks like a duck it's a damn duck.
Just as the government can put a tax on you doing something, they can put a tax on you not doing something.
Can you tell me percisely how this passes muster in regards to article 1 section 9?
"... even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
It does not matter if the commerce happens completely within the boundaries of the state, only so long as the activity has an effect on interstate commerce congress can legislate it.
Now what constitutes effect, how much effect on interstate commerce is necessary for it to land under interstate commerce clause has been argued (see US v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr), But I would say that if arguing on the merits that health insurance does not fall under the interstate commerce clause will ultimately fail. This is why the states are raising contest under the requirement to purchase and not solely on the legislations merits of necessary and proper.
It took me over a fucking week to get wifi working on linux. Then I gave up. Linux and Mac OS are the biggest fucking kludges I've ever seen.
Then you were doing it wrong, or doing it in 1997.
go spin your lies to someone else. a cylinder is more sturdy than a box... simple physics, moron. thanks for confirming the frequency of tube damage.
Yes, but a cylinder also has the property of being able to roll with ease. When a package rolls, it inevitably finds itself lodged under other cylinders called tires. The crush weight of whatever may roll over your tube will be considerably larger than what it is rated at. Something like this box will ship better than any cylinder and something like this will fare even better.