The video sucked, yes, but the music (at least the first half) did not. The song was Genesis by the French group Justice. Perhaps with your refined tastes you believe that it was "horrible music copying Daft Punk," but Justice's music is nearly universally praised by music critics. In fact, I would argue that the Justice album Cross is more a consistent and better listen than anything Daft Punk ever put together.
As an attorney myself, I feel the need to address some misconceptions.
1. This was not a class action, it was simply two individual cases. 2. The article is woefully sparse on details regarding the settlement. I do not practice in Pennsylvania, but I can assure you that the Rules of Professional Conduct in that state do not allow attorneys to take a nearly 70% fee. Most states will only allow a maximum fee of 35% or so. In a contingency fee practice, the client is always responsible for his or her own costs, unless the client fee agreement specifically states otherwise. Under the agreement, these costs are advanced by the attorney, but the client is ultimately responsible for repayment. In this case, it seems unlikely that the attorney could have accumulated $350k in costs, but regardless, any money above that 35% (more likely 33%) ceiling is going to repay money the attorney already spent out of his or her own pocket. These costs do not include the attorney's salary, her staff's salary, office rent, etc, they only include direct costs related to the case, such as legal research fees, travel expenses, filing fees, and expert fees. 3. An attorney DOES have repercussions if she issues casual advice to a potential client. The attorney/client relationship begins before any agreement is signed between the parties. Details, even from an initial meeting and even if the attorney is not ultimately hired to represent the client, are protected by attorney/client privilege and the attorney can land herself in hot water if she breaches this privilege.
Something to remember here is that an individual can always represent him or herself in court, so long as the individual is competent. That being said, hiring an experienced attorney will inevitably lead to a better outcome, very likely offsetting any costs. Unfortunately, our legal system is far too complex to navigate effectively without years of education and experience.
Just to keep up my reputation as an anal law person, I have one slight correction. The Rule Against Perpetuities invalidates future interests that do not vest within 21 years of the death of the last identifiable LIFE IN BEING at the time the interest was created. Thus, it's not necessarily measured by the life of the creator, but could be measured (and likely would be) by the life of a beneficiary, making it possible for the interest to potentially reach across multiple generations. Fun fact: In my home state of Washington, the Rule Against Perpetuities does not come into effect until 150 years after the instrument is created.
Nice try. The Castle doctrine is only applicable to unlawful intruders into one's house, not to someone walking down the street, as in the scenario we were discussing. Even so, it requires a particular set of circumstances before it can be invoked, thus making it a privilege.
You do not understand the basic legal concept of a right versus a privilege. I suggest you start by reading up on Hohlfeldian correlatives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld#Hohfeldian_analysis
Good luck to you.
I was not going to jump into this, but for the love of God people, please learn something about the law. Self defense is NOT a "right," it is a privilege. A right is something the holder bears at all times, to which someone else owes a duty to recognize. A privilege, however, is only invoked if certain preconditions are met, such as the requirement that one must hold a driver's license to be able to use the public roads.
To be able to argue the affirmative defense of self defense, you must meet a certain set of circumstances that typically look something like this: (1) Actual belief that one faced IMMINENT bodily harm, (2) the belief that one faced imminent harm was objectively reasonable, (3) actual belief that the degree of force one used was necessary for the purpose of defending one's self, and (4) the belief that the appropriate degree of force used was objectively reasonable.
This means that it is CRUCIAL that the force used in defense was both proportional and IN REACTION to imminent (as in immediately impending) bodily harm. This goes directly to the heart of the issue of carrying a handgun in ANTICIPATION of a deadly attack. What society risks by embracing a mentality that it is one's "right" to use lethal force on the streets is the potential creation of a paranoid army of gun wielding vigilantes who have a misconstrued conception of the law and who will escalate minor confrontations to a deadly level.
Please turn off the evening news once in a while and do a little research. Violent unprovoked attacks are extremely rare. It is ludicrous to walk down the streets, wielding a gun in preparation for a criminal to jump out from around a corner with a gun of his or her own. A more likely scenario might be a petty thief perpetrating a pickpocket. At that point do you have the RIGHT to take out your gun and shoot the thief? You likely do not, because it was not objectively reasonable to use deadly force in such a scenario.
For your mental, personal, and legal well-being, please just start living your lives not in a state of paranoia, but in a state of cautioned reason.
While, as a law student, I completely agree with this sentiment, I think you're missing a major point. You're not only paying a lawyer to interpret and apply the law, you're also paying a lawyer (much like a surgeon) to take on a great deal of liability. The consequences of legal proceedings jeopardize citizens' most basic rights of life and liberty; as such, one would be foolish to not hire a non-biased third party who deals with the court system on a daily basis. The old saying "Only a fool has himself as a client" is as true today as it was a hundred years ago.
In case anyone cares -- those payouts in the cities where the contracts have been partially fulfilled are the result of "liquidated damage" clauses in the contracts, if you care to learn more about it.
I don't understand the logic behind this. This sounds akin to demanding from Sony that Playstation 3 discs run on all other gaming systems. This isn't an issue of vendor lock in, as it was with Microsoft making it difficult for home users to use anything but Internet Explorer with Windows. If European consumers don't want to deal with the DRM on the iTunes store, then they should not purchase songs from there, it's as simple as that. I can see no reason why Apple should be under some kind of obligation to allow a product that people are well aware only plays on the iPod to play on other MP3 players. Does someone care to enlighten me as to why this makes any logical sense whatsoever?
So if anyone is still interested at this point, there is a song by the artist RJD2 that was made exactly this same way. It's called "Through The Walls." It's a "pop" song sort of format (i.e., drums, piano, guitar), but all the backing tracks were made from splicing the instruments together note by note. If I remember correctly in an interview, he said it took him something like a month or two to put together.
This isn't a matter of legal debate, it's simply compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In order to compel the defendant to produce the hard drive, the plaintiff (Sony) had to show that the information contained therein is relevant (under FRCP 26(a)). In this case it certainly was, as the court stated. The defendant brought up some legitimate concerns about privacy of documents not in dispute on the hard drive, and the judge agreed that to allow a mirror of the hard drive by Sony would be overly broad. This strikes a fine compromise between the concerns of both sides.
Please stop making up facts. Sorry to let you and your wonderfully substantiated argument down, but Nigeria is not "substantially more wealthy" than India. In fact, India's GDP per capita is over twice what Nigeria's is:
It's not quite as simple as that. You'll even find debate among college textbooks/subjects. If you want a counter point read some modern sociology or even social philosophers like Michel Foucault. The gist is that people are being increasingly catagorized as time goes by. In the last 50 years the theory of what "abnormal" behavior is has become more and more wide spread. I believe hyperactivity and ADD are probably a better example of this than depression. After someone is catagorized as "abnormal" it only compounds their belief that they are an outsider.
This is coming from someone who has long suffered the effects of depression. I'm not saying these mental disorders don't exist, but as society pushes what "normal" is further to the fray, it only compound the alienation felt by these people who are unaccepted in our modern culture.
I'm with you... It works great on my 1 Ghz G4 powerbook... it also works just fine on my 450 Mhz G4 at work even when I'm doing stuff on Photoshop all day.
Re:Expensive boondoggle.
on
Hack Your Ride
·
· Score: 2, Funny
For some reason remembering seeing the Apple I in the Smithsonian was the first thing I thought of when i thought of a wooden computer case. Have a look Smithsonian Apple I
I'm not saying you faked this, but as someone who uses photoshop every single day and my job is retouching pictures I can tell you that screen is fake. It's a bad fake at that. The color is far too uniform, a real screen would have much more light reflected. Not to mention it's wider at the top than it is at the bottom, look at the width of the monitor compared to the side of the case. And yes, the most obvious is the top corners from the old monitor showing through, even the bottom corners had a poor job done on them. I'm sure it was faked by someone else.
Haha... I remember running Kaleidoscope or sometimes Aaron on my Performa 467 (33 Mhz, woo). To give it that OS 8 feel even though I was rockin 7.5.5 I'm not sure how many people remember how much of a big deal OS 8 was when it came out... I remember it getting more hype it seemed than the initial releases of OS X.
Not to be nitpicky, but I believe the Gameboy Advance is backwards compatible all the way back to the original Gameboy games. I thought that was pretty cool...
Yes! If only some alternative to windows existed with the stability of Unix and an easy to use attractive interface. *sigh* We can only dream.... well, I must be getting back to my Mac now...
Actually I'll bet you it will cost $3000... big deal, same as all their other laptops. Things have gone wayyy down in cost over the years anyways. My dad got the first G3 Powerbook (233 mhz I think)... guess how much it cost? Upwards of $5000.... around $5300 I think if I remember correct.
Quake 3 I'll give you easily... but UT2003? Come on. I have a 1 Ghz TiBook with a better video card than you and I wouldn't say UT2003 runs happily. I think anything short of a G5 won't run that game happily.
It requires a contract yes... but as far as I know anyone's money is good. I got my own contract when I was 17. And I got kicked off for file sharing after a month, lol. I was ahead of the curve, this was 4 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
The video sucked, yes, but the music (at least the first half) did not. The song was Genesis by the French group Justice. Perhaps with your refined tastes you believe that it was "horrible music copying Daft Punk," but Justice's music is nearly universally praised by music critics. In fact, I would argue that the Justice album Cross is more a consistent and better listen than anything Daft Punk ever put together.
As an attorney myself, I feel the need to address some misconceptions.
1. This was not a class action, it was simply two individual cases.
2. The article is woefully sparse on details regarding the settlement. I do not practice in Pennsylvania, but I can assure you that the Rules of Professional Conduct in that state do not allow attorneys to take a nearly 70% fee. Most states will only allow a maximum fee of 35% or so. In a contingency fee practice, the client is always responsible for his or her own costs, unless the client fee agreement specifically states otherwise. Under the agreement, these costs are advanced by the attorney, but the client is ultimately responsible for repayment. In this case, it seems unlikely that the attorney could have accumulated $350k in costs, but regardless, any money above that 35% (more likely 33%) ceiling is going to repay money the attorney already spent out of his or her own pocket. These costs do not include the attorney's salary, her staff's salary, office rent, etc, they only include direct costs related to the case, such as legal research fees, travel expenses, filing fees, and expert fees.
3. An attorney DOES have repercussions if she issues casual advice to a potential client. The attorney/client relationship begins before any agreement is signed between the parties. Details, even from an initial meeting and even if the attorney is not ultimately hired to represent the client, are protected by attorney/client privilege and the attorney can land herself in hot water if she breaches this privilege.
Something to remember here is that an individual can always represent him or herself in court, so long as the individual is competent. That being said, hiring an experienced attorney will inevitably lead to a better outcome, very likely offsetting any costs. Unfortunately, our legal system is far too complex to navigate effectively without years of education and experience.
Just to keep up my reputation as an anal law person, I have one slight correction. The Rule Against Perpetuities invalidates future interests that do not vest within 21 years of the death of the last identifiable LIFE IN BEING at the time the interest was created. Thus, it's not necessarily measured by the life of the creator, but could be measured (and likely would be) by the life of a beneficiary, making it possible for the interest to potentially reach across multiple generations. Fun fact: In my home state of Washington, the Rule Against Perpetuities does not come into effect until 150 years after the instrument is created.
Nice try. The Castle doctrine is only applicable to unlawful intruders into one's house, not to someone walking down the street, as in the scenario we were discussing. Even so, it requires a particular set of circumstances before it can be invoked, thus making it a privilege. You do not understand the basic legal concept of a right versus a privilege. I suggest you start by reading up on Hohlfeldian correlatives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Newcomb_Hohfeld#Hohfeldian_analysis Good luck to you.
I was not going to jump into this, but for the love of God people, please learn something about the law. Self defense is NOT a "right," it is a privilege. A right is something the holder bears at all times, to which someone else owes a duty to recognize. A privilege, however, is only invoked if certain preconditions are met, such as the requirement that one must hold a driver's license to be able to use the public roads. To be able to argue the affirmative defense of self defense, you must meet a certain set of circumstances that typically look something like this: (1) Actual belief that one faced IMMINENT bodily harm, (2) the belief that one faced imminent harm was objectively reasonable, (3) actual belief that the degree of force one used was necessary for the purpose of defending one's self, and (4) the belief that the appropriate degree of force used was objectively reasonable. This means that it is CRUCIAL that the force used in defense was both proportional and IN REACTION to imminent (as in immediately impending) bodily harm. This goes directly to the heart of the issue of carrying a handgun in ANTICIPATION of a deadly attack. What society risks by embracing a mentality that it is one's "right" to use lethal force on the streets is the potential creation of a paranoid army of gun wielding vigilantes who have a misconstrued conception of the law and who will escalate minor confrontations to a deadly level. Please turn off the evening news once in a while and do a little research. Violent unprovoked attacks are extremely rare. It is ludicrous to walk down the streets, wielding a gun in preparation for a criminal to jump out from around a corner with a gun of his or her own. A more likely scenario might be a petty thief perpetrating a pickpocket. At that point do you have the RIGHT to take out your gun and shoot the thief? You likely do not, because it was not objectively reasonable to use deadly force in such a scenario. For your mental, personal, and legal well-being, please just start living your lives not in a state of paranoia, but in a state of cautioned reason.
While, as a law student, I completely agree with this sentiment, I think you're missing a major point. You're not only paying a lawyer to interpret and apply the law, you're also paying a lawyer (much like a surgeon) to take on a great deal of liability. The consequences of legal proceedings jeopardize citizens' most basic rights of life and liberty; as such, one would be foolish to not hire a non-biased third party who deals with the court system on a daily basis. The old saying "Only a fool has himself as a client" is as true today as it was a hundred years ago.
In case anyone cares -- those payouts in the cities where the contracts have been partially fulfilled are the result of "liquidated damage" clauses in the contracts, if you care to learn more about it.
I don't understand the logic behind this. This sounds akin to demanding from Sony that Playstation 3 discs run on all other gaming systems. This isn't an issue of vendor lock in, as it was with Microsoft making it difficult for home users to use anything but Internet Explorer with Windows. If European consumers don't want to deal with the DRM on the iTunes store, then they should not purchase songs from there, it's as simple as that. I can see no reason why Apple should be under some kind of obligation to allow a product that people are well aware only plays on the iPod to play on other MP3 players. Does someone care to enlighten me as to why this makes any logical sense whatsoever?
So if anyone is still interested at this point, there is a song by the artist RJD2 that was made exactly this same way. It's called "Through The Walls." It's a "pop" song sort of format (i.e., drums, piano, guitar), but all the backing tracks were made from splicing the instruments together note by note. If I remember correctly in an interview, he said it took him something like a month or two to put together.
This isn't a matter of legal debate, it's simply compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In order to compel the defendant to produce the hard drive, the plaintiff (Sony) had to show that the information contained therein is relevant (under FRCP 26(a)). In this case it certainly was, as the court stated. The defendant brought up some legitimate concerns about privacy of documents not in dispute on the hard drive, and the judge agreed that to allow a mirror of the hard drive by Sony would be overly broad. This strikes a fine compromise between the concerns of both sides.
Moooove!
India GDP Per Capita (2005): $3300
Nigeria GDP Per Capita (2005) $1400
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /in.html#Econ
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /ni.html#Econ
That is a significant number, especially given the fact that India's GDP is growing faster than Nigeria's is.
This is coming from someone who has long suffered the effects of depression. I'm not saying these mental disorders don't exist, but as society pushes what "normal" is further to the fray, it only compound the alienation felt by these people who are unaccepted in our modern culture.
I know I'll be modded offtopic, but where are you wanting to go? I too am going to law school in the fall
I'm with you... It works great on my 1 Ghz G4 powerbook... it also works just fine on my 450 Mhz G4 at work even when I'm doing stuff on Photoshop all day.
30 wheel horsepower from chipping... haaah.
For some reason remembering seeing the Apple I in the Smithsonian was the first thing I thought of when i thought of a wooden computer case. Have a look Smithsonian Apple I
I'm not saying you faked this, but as someone who uses photoshop every single day and my job is retouching pictures I can tell you that screen is fake. It's a bad fake at that. The color is far too uniform, a real screen would have much more light reflected. Not to mention it's wider at the top than it is at the bottom, look at the width of the monitor compared to the side of the case. And yes, the most obvious is the top corners from the old monitor showing through, even the bottom corners had a poor job done on them. I'm sure it was faked by someone else.
Haha... I remember running Kaleidoscope or sometimes Aaron on my Performa 467 (33 Mhz, woo). To give it that OS 8 feel even though I was rockin 7.5.5 I'm not sure how many people remember how much of a big deal OS 8 was when it came out... I remember it getting more hype it seemed than the initial releases of OS X.
Not to be nitpicky, but I believe the Gameboy Advance is backwards compatible all the way back to the original Gameboy games. I thought that was pretty cool...
Yes! If only some alternative to windows existed with the stability of Unix and an easy to use attractive interface. *sigh* We can only dream.... well, I must be getting back to my Mac now...
Actually I'll bet you it will cost $3000... big deal, same as all their other laptops. Things have gone wayyy down in cost over the years anyways. My dad got the first G3 Powerbook (233 mhz I think)... guess how much it cost? Upwards of $5000.... around $5300 I think if I remember correct.
Quake 3 I'll give you easily... but UT2003? Come on. I have a 1 Ghz TiBook with a better video card than you and I wouldn't say UT2003 runs happily. I think anything short of a G5 won't run that game happily.
It requires a contract yes... but as far as I know anyone's money is good. I got my own contract when I was 17. And I got kicked off for file sharing after a month, lol. I was ahead of the curve, this was 4 years ago.
I agree with you. You made a good clarification on the original post, thank you.