Part of the dispute--that would in a large part determine his guilt--focuses on whether he was, in fact, a DVD-watching driver. He disputes this. It's a material element of the offense, and thus needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was watching.
Same deal with the Judge in the Kobe Bryant trial (and many others, BTW) ordering the witnesses and counsil to refer to the alleged victim by name, and not as "the victim", because most of Kobe's defense is that she consented and thus is not a victim.
The phrase "malice aforethought" has changed it's meaning in the courts over the last several centuries so that neither actual malice (nor actual aforethought...) is required. In fact, many states do away with this all together.
The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, from which most states have borrowed extensively for their own crimes codes during the revisions of the 60s and 70s, defines murder as:
Section 210.2. Murder.
Except as provided in Section 210.3(1)(b) [mitigating the crime to manslaughter when committed "under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse"], criminal homicide constitutes murder when:
it is committed purposely or knowingly; or
it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.
Murder is a felony of the first degree [but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death, as provided in Section 210.6].
Recklessly is defined as:
Section 2.02. General Requirements of Culpability... (2)(c) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
I don't think this could be considered murder at all. The indifference the murder statute speaks of is quite strict, and I don't think it's present in this case. I think even recklessness would be somewhat of a stretch. Neglegant homicide is probably the best (worst?) crime I think the MPC would definitely support.
Most states have vehicular manslaughter charges though that reduce the culpability requirements to negligance when you are operating a motor vehicle though, so assuming this state has such a crime it would certainly be supported.
But a particularily pedantic at best, and wrong at worst, grammar flame. The construction 'best-selling author' is used very frequently and is well established. You are being much much too literal.
For instance, I could say "Best-selling author Stephen King's new book Big Scary Stuff comes out on Friday", meaning that King has best-selling books. This is distinct from "Stephen King is the author of the best-seller Jurassic Park", for the latter means that particular book was a best-seller. For one final example to make the distinction clear, I could also say "Best-selling author Stephen King's first book was This Little Novel No One Ever Has Heard of Or Bought" even though the book isn't a best-seller.
So Stephen Hawking is indeed the best-selling author of the best-selling book A Brief History of Time.
No, not always. Plenty of inventors will make something up, approach other companies to do the actual marketing and manufacturing, sell them rights to the patent, and then go on and make something else. (Rinse and repeat)
Look at the Dyson vacuum cleaner. Dyson invented the bagless vacuum, patented it, and approached other vacuum companies to see if they were interested. Only after he was turned down did he actually start his own company. And after his vacuums took off, other companies copied his patent, were sued, and lost. That, to me, is perfectly desirable and just.
Granted, I can't tell if the company in question here approached MS and friends (and enemies) to see if they wanted to license their patent, but if they had and were refused, I have to stand on their side.
Okay, I have to call bull on this. I'm not gonna comment specifically about this case, because I don't know much about them.
But there's a world of difference between companies that follow your steps 1-4 and SCO. SCO is claiming to have authorship of code that is in Linux they (probably) didn't write.
On the other hand, you're describing professional inventors. This is, in my opinion, a legitimate profession/business. And patents are literally the only thing (other than the good will of companies, which from what I've seen is essentially non existant when it comes to significant quantities of cash) that allows such professional inventors to have a job, by allowing them to collect royalties off of the use of their inventions.
I use a SUN USB keyboard - the only odd thing about it is that the Control key and the Caps Lock key are basically switched around. It took some getting used to, but now that I'm used to it, I find it much easier to use.
Many people here would tell you that this is the "correct" setup.:-p
Actually, I have a normal computer set up to do that. It's pretty easy with X if you're running Unix (and even easier with Gnome), and there's a utility in I think the Windows Resource Kit that will let you remap just about any key under Windows.
It has the added "bonus" of, along with the change to a Dvorak layout (for which the keys aren't marked because the permanent marker's ink that I use periodically to label the keys wears off in relatively short order), probably making my computer to just about anyone...
I would strongly reccomend trying Dvorak for a couple weeks if you start having wrist problems. Get a copy of Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing version 5 or something (apparently the later ones don't have Dvorak...) and run through the exercises.
I've had wrist problems, and I find the Dvoark layout to be stupendous compared to QWERTY.
(Granted, I don't have exactly a scientific rationale for saying this because I modified two variables when I switched. Before I would do sorta an advanced form of multi-finger hunt-and-peck on QWERTY. No real rhyme or reason for how I hit the keys. When I changed to Dvorak, I decided I better learn how to properly touchtype. So that probably helped the comfort too. But it is so much better I can't believe that would account for all of the improvement.)
The burden of proof is indeed a preponderance of evidence. I don't like the description of "51%" because it isn't that meaningful to me. I prefer saying that proving something by a preponderance of evidence means showing that it is more likely than not. (Including the defense's evidence of course.) Barron's law dictionary has the quote "Evidence preponderates where it is more convincing to the trier [of fact] than the opposing evidence."
Clear and convincing evidence is sometimes used for affirmative defenses, such as insanity. (Usually it's a preponderance of the evidence.) In these cases, the defense must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defense was met. If during deliberation the jury finds that the burden was met, and the prosecution failed to disprove the defense by a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' burden, they must acquit.
On the other hand, I can hardly see people going in to B&N and buying enough books to keep that many large stores (plus all the other stores too) operating quite nicely just so that they can have another book sitting on the shelf looking impressive. I'd wager that most books bought are at least attempted to be read.
Hmm, I reread your post and saw the "can"... I apologize for my prompt reaction to your post before.
Anyway, such a technique would probably be ruled unconstitutional as it isn't for a limited period. (And before you reference the Sonny Bono copyright extension and it being upheld, SCOTUS hinted that they would not approve future retroactive increases.)
I'd say #1 and #2 would be covered by prior art. #3 is probably obvious. #4 may be obvious, it's probably controvercial.
But I'd say that without further knowledge, #5, #6, and #8 have at least some merit, and I'd say #7 should be considered perfectly valid.
Though I wonder about this: "For example, the machine could produce only the boob necessary for the number of students enrolled in a particular class and only those books which the professor has designated for the particular course"... what classes do you get boobs in?
At least in the US, and I think most other countries, you're full of shit.
The clock on copyrights start running when the author dies (for 70 years) for works by individuals, or first publication (for 95 years) or creation (for 120 years), whichever expires first, for anonymous works and works for hire.
Older regulations also started the clock at first publication.
Still I prefer reading a book over a PDF. books are highly portable, you can carry a book with you almost anywhere. And it doubles as a defense weapon that gains strength by thickness.
There are professional inventors and invention companies. They invent something, then sell the rights to it to another company to actually produce. You'd lose them.
That's more of a slashcode quirk than forgetting... it interpreted the as an HTML tag and dropped it. So it's just from a lack of previewing, not really a mistake.
I'll admit that the bug was wrong... I RTFA but apparently it's the wrong FA.
However, I must disagree that your second point mitigates the responsibility Mozilla had. They knew about the presence of the bug (at least to some extent) and did nothing. If I'm an evil website developer, I don't care where the bug is, just that it's exploitable through Mozilla. They propagated the bug, and thus bear a good deal of responsibility for the presence of a remote exploit in Mozilla.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the dispute--that would in a large part determine his guilt--focuses on whether he was, in fact, a DVD-watching driver. He disputes this. It's a material element of the offense, and thus needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was watching.
Same deal with the Judge in the Kobe Bryant trial (and many others, BTW) ordering the witnesses and counsil to refer to the alleged victim by name, and not as "the victim", because most of Kobe's defense is that she consented and thus is not a victim.
"Death comes naturally from falling 1000ft, just like it comes from wreckless driving so IMO this is not an excuse"
Wreckless driving is desirable. It would be wonderful if everyone drove wrecklessly.
You're looking for "reckless"...
The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, from which most states have borrowed extensively for their own crimes codes during the revisions of the 60s and 70s, defines murder as:
Section 210.2. Murder.
- Except as provided in Section 210.3(1)(b) [mitigating the crime to manslaughter when committed "under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse"], criminal homicide constitutes murder when:
- it is committed purposely or knowingly; or
- it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.
- Murder is a felony of the first degree [but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death, as provided in Section 210.6].
Recklessly is defined as:Section 2.02. General Requirements of Culpability
(2)(c) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
I don't think this could be considered murder at all. The indifference the murder statute speaks of is quite strict, and I don't think it's present in this case. I think even recklessness would be somewhat of a stretch. Neglegant homicide is probably the best (worst?) crime I think the MPC would definitely support.
Most states have vehicular manslaughter charges though that reduce the culpability requirements to negligance when you are operating a motor vehicle though, so assuming this state has such a crime it would certainly be supported.
You know, and all the time I was writing that I was thinking "there's somethnig wrong here".
So, uh, sorry Mr. Crichton and Mr. King about that... my mistake
I think it's just conclusive proof he writes his papers with a program similar to the following:
But a particularily pedantic at best, and wrong at worst, grammar flame. The construction 'best-selling author' is used very frequently and is well established. You are being much much too literal.
For instance, I could say "Best-selling author Stephen King's new book Big Scary Stuff comes out on Friday", meaning that King has best-selling books. This is distinct from "Stephen King is the author of the best-seller Jurassic Park", for the latter means that particular book was a best-seller. For one final example to make the distinction clear, I could also say "Best-selling author Stephen King's first book was This Little Novel No One Ever Has Heard of Or Bought" even though the book isn't a best-seller.
So Stephen Hawking is indeed the best-selling author of the best-selling book A Brief History of Time.
Parent is a good post.
No, not always. Plenty of inventors will make something up, approach other companies to do the actual marketing and manufacturing, sell them rights to the patent, and then go on and make something else. (Rinse and repeat)
Look at the Dyson vacuum cleaner. Dyson invented the bagless vacuum, patented it, and approached other vacuum companies to see if they were interested. Only after he was turned down did he actually start his own company. And after his vacuums took off, other companies copied his patent, were sued, and lost. That, to me, is perfectly desirable and just.
Granted, I can't tell if the company in question here approached MS and friends (and enemies) to see if they wanted to license their patent, but if they had and were refused, I have to stand on their side.
Isn't it on by default?
I've installed XP twice on here and don't recall having to turn it on either time...
The Unix apps you mention don't automatically connect to the distribution service to get updates.
Okay, I have to call bull on this. I'm not gonna comment specifically about this case, because I don't know much about them.
But there's a world of difference between companies that follow your steps 1-4 and SCO. SCO is claiming to have authorship of code that is in Linux they (probably) didn't write.
On the other hand, you're describing professional inventors. This is, in my opinion, a legitimate profession/business. And patents are literally the only thing (other than the good will of companies, which from what I've seen is essentially non existant when it comes to significant quantities of cash) that allows such professional inventors to have a job, by allowing them to collect royalties off of the use of their inventions.
I use a SUN USB keyboard - the only odd thing about it is that the Control key and the Caps Lock key are basically switched around. It took some getting used to, but now that I'm used to it, I find it much easier to use.
:-p
Many people here would tell you that this is the "correct" setup.
Actually, I have a normal computer set up to do that. It's pretty easy with X if you're running Unix (and even easier with Gnome), and there's a utility in I think the Windows Resource Kit that will let you remap just about any key under Windows.
It has the added "bonus" of, along with the change to a Dvorak layout (for which the keys aren't marked because the permanent marker's ink that I use periodically to label the keys wears off in relatively short order), probably making my computer to just about anyone...
I would strongly reccomend trying Dvorak for a couple weeks if you start having wrist problems. Get a copy of Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing version 5 or something (apparently the later ones don't have Dvorak...) and run through the exercises.
I've had wrist problems, and I find the Dvoark layout to be stupendous compared to QWERTY.
(Granted, I don't have exactly a scientific rationale for saying this because I modified two variables when I switched. Before I would do sorta an advanced form of multi-finger hunt-and-peck on QWERTY. No real rhyme or reason for how I hit the keys. When I changed to Dvorak, I decided I better learn how to properly touchtype. So that probably helped the comfort too. But it is so much better I can't believe that would account for all of the improvement.)
The burden of proof is indeed a preponderance of evidence. I don't like the description of "51%" because it isn't that meaningful to me. I prefer saying that proving something by a preponderance of evidence means showing that it is more likely than not. (Including the defense's evidence of course.) Barron's law dictionary has the quote "Evidence preponderates where it is more convincing to the trier [of fact] than the opposing evidence."
Clear and convincing evidence is sometimes used for affirmative defenses, such as insanity. (Usually it's a preponderance of the evidence.) In these cases, the defense must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defense was met. If during deliberation the jury finds that the burden was met, and the prosecution failed to disprove the defense by a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' burden, they must acquit.
On the other hand, I can hardly see people going in to B&N and buying enough books to keep that many large stores (plus all the other stores too) operating quite nicely just so that they can have another book sitting on the shelf looking impressive. I'd wager that most books bought are at least attempted to be read.
Hmm, I reread your post and saw the "can"... I apologize for my prompt reaction to your post before.
Anyway, such a technique would probably be ruled unconstitutional as it isn't for a limited period. (And before you reference the Sonny Bono copyright extension and it being upheld, SCOTUS hinted that they would not approve future retroactive increases.)
Okay, so which claim was violated?
I'd say #1 and #2 would be covered by prior art. #3 is probably obvious. #4 may be obvious, it's probably controvercial.
But I'd say that without further knowledge, #5, #6, and #8 have at least some merit, and I'd say #7 should be considered perfectly valid.
Though I wonder about this: "For example, the machine could produce only the boob necessary for the number of students enrolled in a particular class and only those books which the professor has designated for the particular course"... what classes do you get boobs in?
At least in the US, and I think most other countries, you're full of shit.
The clock on copyrights start running when the author dies (for 70 years) for works by individuals, or first publication (for 95 years) or creation (for 120 years), whichever expires first, for anonymous works and works for hire.
Older regulations also started the clock at first publication.
Still I prefer reading a book over a PDF. books are highly portable, you can carry a book with you almost anywhere. And it doubles as a defense weapon that gains strength by thickness.
And it isn't backlit... and higher res.
Is it retarded that Mozilla passes along protocols it doesn't recognize to the underlying OS? Hell yes.
Bingo. Especially when there is a known vunerability. And that is why Mozilla bears a lot of the burden associated with the hole.
There are professional inventors and invention companies. They invent something, then sell the rights to it to another company to actually produce. You'd lose them.
"Welcome to my world"
-Dogbert
I haven't seen a critical update require a reboot in some time.
That's more of a slashcode quirk than forgetting... it interpreted the as an HTML tag and dropped it. So it's just from a lack of previewing, not really a mistake.
I'll admit that the bug was wrong... I RTFA but apparently it's the wrong FA.
However, I must disagree that your second point mitigates the responsibility Mozilla had. They knew about the presence of the bug (at least to some extent) and did nothing. If I'm an evil website developer, I don't care where the bug is, just that it's exploitable through Mozilla. They propagated the bug, and thus bear a good deal of responsibility for the presence of a remote exploit in Mozilla.