even better - a friend of a friend of a friend (I know, it's getting farfetched) actually machined a set of screws that were purportedly somehow double-threaded so that (literally) you could turn it any which way and it would properly thread and go in.
The one for this claim is probably covered by a very thick NDA, but generally as part of any settlement, the written agreement is a contract that offers the plaintiff money in consideration for an agreement to discharge any and all claims [arising out of these circumstances] against the defendant now and forever.
As far as I know, in the absence of fraud, duress or undue influence, he can win the lottery tomorrow, end up a million dollars richer, and there's nothing the RIAA could do about it.
Anyone from RPI knows about the 'Tute Screw. As parent said, RPI has, at best, a love-hate relationship with its students.
Oh - and just what is a Tute Screw? I have yet to see one, but it describes the general approach of the administration to the students - no matter which way you turn it, it always goes in...
I think it's interesting that California chose Lexis, but perhaps not as ominous as it would seem. As part of their obligation to provide true public access to the law, many (or maybe most) courts have law libraries.
Yes, it's on paper, yes, it's not searchable from the comfort of your home... but I think that's what you pay for when you get the access through Lexis or Westlaw's online service.
Many law libraries even have searchable case law on archived CDs, or cheap/free alternatives (like Loislaw and Lexis One.
Remember, lots of legal treatises (and perhaps some other states' "official publications") are published by LexisNexis, as are any books that used to be published under the Matthew Bender name...
While the APA [Administrative Procedure Act] does not require all agencies to follow one single model for rulemaking, it does impose minimum procedural conditions that all agencies are expected to follow. This is to ensure that the public has the opportunity to participate in the formulation and revision of government regulations, and that there be minimum standards for judicial review.
The requirements are quite minimal, yet as basic rules they provide the foundation for the development of further procedures. For example, although the APA does not require a public file or record of the rulemaking process, agencies usually compile one to prove their process is fair and reasonable.
What this means:
Unless a specific enabling statute for a set of regulations directs otherwise, a federal agency is required to have a general "notice and comment" period in rulemaking. What that means is entirely up to the agency, and sometimes agencies go through internal rulemaking to determine their rulemaking procedures. It all goes to supplement the legitimacy of the regulative process, and agencies generally err on the side of more comment than less. So long as there is a rational basis for their rulemaking, it is generally upheld on review.
I wouldn't blame this on the Bush administration, I'd just say that it's possible that it would be easier for agencies to ensure that people who submit comments are (a) actually people, and (b) accountable to their comments.
Paper carries a lot more weight anyway - if you feel strongly enough about proposed legislation, read up on it online, then write a letter and drop it in the mail.
As much as I like to not be disturbed on my cell phone at times, (a) I can ignore it, and (b) if the various "do not call" lists are effective (and GOD i hope they will be) what's the difference of a house phone?
I mean - I use my cell phone as my primary phone anyway. I'm used to screening calls with it. In some ways, I would be more accessible (in a good way) if people could call directory assistance and get my number.
That's the whole point of the Daubert decision mentioned in the article. Judges are supposed to act as gatekeepers for opinion testimony. If the proferred expert is helpful, duly qualified, there's a factual basis for the opinion, and the opinion is reliable (beyond the old Frye standard), there's a strong likelihood that the judge will let the expert testimony in.
Juries are finders of fact, not law - if a judge finds that even a qualified expert's testimony would be irrelevant, confusing, or cumulative, she can keep it out.
It wasn't crap... I think they need to improve a little on some of their interpretations, though...
My biggest criticism of BSG has been (as with many sci-fi programs) that they speak English but come up with their own units of measurement (centons, etc.). Kudos to them for trying to make it interesting by creating everything unique to the series, but sometimes it was just hokey.:)
I have to admit, though - seeing the Cylon in costume on an episode of (and, I believe, the opening credits to) the A-Team, having a brief exchange with Dirk Benedict, was priceless.
I think that if a scifi writer is going to allow some "inaccuracies" in (like the English language) they need to be consistent and talk about minutes and seconds and parsecs and lightyears, too... Just my opinion.
Looks like Dell is finally starting to catch up to Apple. My 1999 Lombard G3 Powerbook doesn't seem to have one, and they started to disappear with the advent of the original iMacs, if not earlier...
Reminds me of the old MS-bashing comment, Windows 95 (or 98 or whatever) still hasn't caught up to Mac 1984..."
Re:Speaking of roller coasters....
on
Robocoaster
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
From the German Website under "Features:" * Microsoft Windows operating system * Internet connectivity * 8 in color VGA display
I don't know much about salvage rights and admiralty law, but maybe there's a relevant portion of some state statute regulating shipping and commerce on the Hudson and what happens to sunken ships? *shrug
More interestingly - what about GE and the whole PCB issue? I see a few problems with anybody digging anything up on a large scale:
a.) Scenic Hudson (or maybe it was another group, I forget) doesn't want anybody stirring up silt in the Hudson for the purposes of GE dredging the PCB-filled mud, so I can't think that they'd think lightly of lots of treasure hunters doing ths same thing.
b.) GE argued from the start that the biggest harm in removing the silt would be that it stirred up all of the PCBs which, over time, have become more benign (or at least less latent on the surface of the mud). Stirring them up, they said, would put them back into the fish, etc... this might relieve GE from its primary argument against dredging, so I've got to think they'd be considering it carefully.
c.) No matter what Scenic Hudson and GE think today about the Hudson, it is well-established that the silt is still chock full of PCBs, and as such, would qualify for treatment as a "hazardous material" upon its removal from the Hudson. Part of the dredging issue was figuring out what lucky Upstate NY town was going to host the geomembrane-protected "silt dump" for disposal of the stuff so it wouldn't leach into the ground and contaminate groundwater, etc. The rule of NIMBY has applied thus far, as far as I know... It would therefore follow that anybody trying to dig up ships would run into a big problem of what to do with the dirt they dug through. (Granted, it's not the whole Hudson, but it still creates an issue if you do anything but leave it there.)
Obviously, this is a very simplified model, and it is very vulnerable to flawed assumptions. For example, our guesses as to how often vampires feed and sire could be well off the mark. And to be fair, I'll tell you that my first order guesses, while probably not too far off, were chosen at least partly to obtain a reasonable result on our first try. In addition to our parameter assumptions being vulnerable, we may have made mistakes in the overall structure of the model. For example, we know that vampires can live (albeit miserably) on non-human prey. We've also heard from Spike that while vampires can starve, they don't actually starve to death. Incorporating these facts into the model might give some very different results.
Other modifiers:
- Buffy's success at finding a mate versus others' successes (hers should be assumed to be higher, which would increase the incidence of vampire-killing traits in the population), - the (Dubya) Bush administration's environmental policy, and whether increased pollution is more harmful to the living or undead, and - If you introduce population genetics to "The WB Frog," will he suddenly change sex and have the potential to bear young (as do amphibians when populations are all female, i think)?
Tom Reilly is a nice guy. He even shook my hand in my office! (Granted, it was really his office... that I just happen to work in, but he was still nice enough to stop by and say hi.)
It should also be noted by anyone who accuses him of doing this for votes that he ran unopposed in November's election.
"The thing about the Hinman program is that it's faculty-sponsored, it's not student-driven. It's really quite remarkable to say, 'We're not only going to teach classes, but we're going to get these kids to live together,' and it's often over those late-night pizzas where the best ideas are born."
I dunno... It's a great idea to foster entrepreneurship and group work, but can it really work when the school seems to be throwing a bunch of self-selected eligible potential e-tycoons in a really nice dorm?
On the other hand, maybe they're just playing the odds that if they throw 100 people together and provide the infrastructure and cell phones, one of them is bound to come up with enough of a marketable idea to make a bajillion dollars.
I should point out that in anticipation of iChat, Apple worked out something with AOL so that users could login to AIM using their mac.com (now.mac) userid and pw.
Although I know little about the AIM client and software, it would seem that all they've done is add a method to log into a new group of userids/pws.
...the metropolitan police are running out of places to hide the bodies and simply need to figure out the "dimensionally transcendental" nature of the TARDIS in order to have more room.
In light of this, I wonder why the people with the patent on the tire-pressure-checker have never gone after the BBC for infringing on their design for the sonic screwdriver!
The real culprit here is the broken Chameleon Circuit. It was under warranty, but alas - the last time he was near an authorized OEM service station, the good Doctor had to leave Gallifrey in haste before someone tried to go and make him Lord President again...
And remember - the REAL Matrix doesn't involve a kid whose only line is "there is no spoon."
Dr. Who rocks. Only he could go back to the beginning of time and jettison 1/3 of the TARDIS (which is asserted in many previous episodes to be infinite) to escape from the gravitational pull that would become the Big Bang. Silly Zero Room.
While it would still behoove Southwest to make a no-frills version (read: Lynx-viewable) of their page available, I have to agree - PICK UP THE PHONE!
And why didn't they pursue the "reasonable accommodation" argument on the theory that dialing the phone number is just as potent as using the website, and is functionally equivalent when you look at the end result.
Web method: 1.) Go to web site 2.) Scroll through things, select flight 3.) Purchase tickets.
Phone method: 1.) Dial number 2.) Talk to human or push buttons, select flight 3.) Purchase tickets.
and i just wanted to be the 500th. Why not try a digital camera with zoom? It's more conspicuous than a surreptitious sweep of a page with the "mouse" scanners was, but hell - you can see exactly what you're going to get before you take the picture...
Hopefully they'll use this promotion to joyfully announce the discontinuation of "Pepsi Blue."
Incidentally, I have found Pepsi Blue to be useful for removing stains from my toilet bowl, and not much else. It is certainly unfit for human consumption.
Just wanted to post a couple of things so people could see a less-biased summary of the court's decision and the actual text of the discussion of the shrinkwrap license and what ACTUALLY went on...
The LEXIS headnotes:
HAROLD L. BOWERS (doing business as HLB Technology), Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
01-1108, 01-1109 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17184
August 20, 2002, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.
Bowers v. Baystate Techs., 112 F. Supp. 2d 185 (D. Mass. 2000).
DISPOSITION: Affirmed, in-part, reversed, in-part. CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, patent holder, appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denying him copyright damages following a jury verdict in his favor on patent and copyright infringement, and breach of contract claims related to United States Patent No. 4,933,514 ('514 patent). The defendant cross-appealed the district court's denial of its motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law or a new trial.
OVERVIEW: At trial, the defendant contended, inter alia, that the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.S. 301(a), preempted the prohibition of reverse engineering embodied in the patent holder's shrink-wrap license agreements. The shrink-wrap license agreement prohibited all reverse engineering of the plaintiff's software, protection encompassing but more extensive than copyright protection, which prohibited only copying. The plaintiff's copyright and contract claims both rested on the defendant's copying of the software. Following the district court's instructions, the jury considered and awarded damages on each separately. The court of appeals found that this was entirely appropriate because the breach of contract damages arose from the same copying and included the same lost sales that formed the basis for the copyright damages. However, the court of appeals perceived no basis upon which a reasonable jury could find that defendant's accused "Draft-Pak" templates infringed claim 1 of the '514 patent and reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for JMOL of non-infringement.
OUTCOME: The jury's verdict on the breach of contract claim was affirmed, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in omitting as duplicative copyright damages from the damage award. However, because no reasonable jury could find that the defendant infringed properly construed claim 1, the jury's verdict on the patent infringement claim was reversed.
The portion of the decision in which they mention ProCD and the shrinkwrap license claims:
Baystate contends that the Copyright Act preempts the prohibition of reverse engineering embodied in Mr. Bowers' shrink-wrap license agreements. Swayed by this argument, the district court considered Mr. Bowers' contract and copyright claims coextensive. The district court instructed the jury that "reverse engineering violates the license agreement only if Baystate's product that resulted from reverse engineering infringes Bowers' copyright because it copies protectable expression." Mr. Bowers lodged a timely objection to this instruction. This court holds that, under First Circuit law, the Copyright Act does not preempt or narrow the scope of Mr. Bowers' contract claim.
Courts respect freedom of contract and do not lightly set aside freely-entered agreements. Beacon Hill Civic Ass'n v. Ristorante Toscano, 422 Mass. 318, 662 N.E.2d 1015, 1017 (Mass. 1996). Nevertheless, at times, federal regulation[*10] may preempt private contract. Cf. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 523, 78 L. Ed. 940, 54 S. Ct. 505 (1934) ("Equally fundamental with the private right is [the right] of the public to regulate [the private right] in the common interest."). The Copyright Act provides that "all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright . . . are governed exclusively by this title." 17 U.S.C. 301(a) (2000). The First Circuit does not interpret this language to require preemption as long as "a state cause of action requires an extra element, beyond mere copying, preparation of derivative works, performance, distribution or display." Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1164, 32 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., 9 F.3d 823, 847, 28 USPQ2d 1503, 1520 (10th Cir. 1993)); see also Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 716 (2d Cir. 1992) ("But if an 'extra element' is 'required instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction, performance, distribution [*11] or display, in order to constitute a state-created cause of action, then the right does not lie "within the general scope of copyright," and there is no preemption.'") (quoting 1 Nimmer on Copyright 1.01[B] at 1-15). Nevertheless, "not every 'extra element' of a state law claim will establish a qualitative variance between the rights protected by federal copyright law and those protected by state law." Id.
In Data General, Data General alleged that Grumman misappropriated its trade secret software. 36 F.3d at 1155. Grumman obtained that software from Data General's customers and former employees who were bound by confidentiality agreements to refrain from disclosing the software. Id. at 1154-55. In defense, Grumman argued that the Copyright Act preempted Data General's trade secret claim. Id. at 1158, 1165. The First Circuit held that the Copyright Act did not preempt the state law trade secret claim. Id. at 1165. Beyond mere copying, that state law claim required proof of a trade secret and breach of a duty of confidentiality. Id. These additional elements of proof, according to the First Circuit, made[*12] the trade secret claim qualitatively different from a copyright claim. Id. In contrast, the First Circuit noted that claims might be preempted whose extra elements are illusory, being "mere labels attached to the same odious business conduct." Id. at 1165 (quoting Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523, 1535, 225 USPQ 776, 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). For example, the First Circuit observed that "a state law misappropriation claim will not escape preemption . . . simply because a plaintiff must prove that copying was not only unauthorized but also commercially immoral." Id.
The First Circuit has not addressed expressly whether the Copyright Act preempts a state law contract claim that restrains copying. This court perceives, however, that Data General's rationale would lead to a judgment that the Copyright Act does not preempt the state contract action in this case. Indeed, most courts to examine this issue have found that the Copyright Act does not preempt contractual constraints on copyrighted articles. See, e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 39 USPQ2d 1161 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a [*13] shrink-wrap license was not preempted by federal copyright law); Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 457, 59 USPQ2d 1434, 1441-42 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding a state law contract claim not preempted by federal copyright law); Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 433, 26 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (8th Cir. 1993); Taquino v. Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d 1488, 1501 (5th Cir. 1990); Acorn Structures v. Swantz, 846 F.2d 923, 926, 6 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (4th Cir. 1988); but see Lipscher v. LRP Publs., Inc., 266 F.3d 1305, 1312, 60 USPQ2d 1468, 1473 (11th Cir. 2001).
In ProCD, for example, the court found that the mutual assent and consideration required by a contract claim render that claim qualitatively different from copyright infringement. 86 F.3d at 1454. Consistent with Data General's reliance on a contract element, the court in ProCD reasoned: "A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast, generally affect only their parties; strangers may do as they please, so contracts do not create 'exclusive rights.'" Id. This [*14] court believes that the First Circuit would follow the reasoning of ProCD and the majority of other courts to consider this issue. This court, therefore, holds that the Copyright Act does not preempt Mr. Bowers' contract claims.
This court now considers the scope of Mr. Bowers' contract protection. Without objection to the choice of law, the district court applied Massachusetts contract law. Accordingly, contract terms receive "the sense and meaning of the words which the parties have used; and if clear and free from ambiguity the words are to be taken and understood in their natural, usual and ordinary sense." Farber v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 250 Mass. 250, 253, 145 N.E. 535 (Mass. 1924); see also Kelly v. Marx, 428 Mass. 877, 881, 705 N.E.2d 1114 (Mass. 1999) ("The proper course is to enforce contracts according to their plain meaning and not to undertake to be wiser than the parties.") (quoting Guerin v. Stacy, 175 Mass. 595, 597, 56 N.E. 892 (1900) (Holmes, C.J.)).
In this case, the contract unambiguously prohibits "reverse engineering." That term means ordinarily "to study or analyze (a device, as a microchip for computers) [*15] in order to learn details of design, construction, and operation, perhaps to produce a copy or an improved version." Random House Unabridged Dictionary (1993); see also The Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing (2001), at http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?reverse+engineering (last visited Jul. 17, 2002). Thus, the contract in this case broadly prohibits any "reverse engineering" of the subject matter covered by the shrink-wrap agreement.
The record amply supports the jury's finding of a breach of that agreement. As discussed above, the district court erred in instructing the jury that copyright law limited the scope of Mr. Bowers' contract protection. Notwithstanding that error, this court may affirm the jury's breach of contract verdict if substantial record evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find in favor of Mr. Bowers based on a correct understanding of the law. Larch v. Mansfield Mun. Elec. Dep't, 272 F.3d 63, 69 (1st Cir. 2001). The shrink-wrap agreements in this case are far broader than the protection afforded by copyright law. Even setting aside copyright violations, the record supports a finding of breach of the agreement between [*16] the parties. In view of the breadth of Mr. Bowers' contracts, this court perceives that substantial evidence supports the jury's breach of contract verdict relating to both the DOS and Windows versions of Draft-Pak.
The record indicates, for example, that Baystate scheduled two weeks in Draft-Pak's development schedule to analyze the Designer's Toolkit. Indeed, Robert Bean, Baystate's president and CEO, testified that Baystate generally analyzed competitor's products to duplicate their functionality.
The record also contains evidence of extensive and unusual similarities between Geodraft and the accused Draft-Pak-further evidence of reverse engineering. James Spencer, head of mechanical engineering and integration at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, testified that he examined the relevant software programs to determine "the overall structure of the operating program" such as "how the operating programs actually executed the task of walking a user through creating a [GD&T] symbol." Mr. Spencer concluded: "In the process of taking the [ANSI Y14.5M] standard and breaking it down into its component parts to actually create a step-by-step process for a user using the [*17] software, both Geodraft and Draft-Pak [for DOS] use almost the identical process of breaking down that task into its individual pieces, and it's organized essentially identically." This evidence supports the jury's verdict of a contract breach based on reverse engineering.
Mr. Ford also testified that he had compared Geodraft and Draft-Pak. When asked to describe the Draft-Pak interface, Mr. Ford responded: "It looked like I was looking at my own program [i.e., Geodraft]." Both Mr. Spencer and Mr. Ford explained in detail similarities between Geodraft and the accused Draft-Pak. Those similarities included the interrelationships between program screens, the manner in which parameter selection causes program branching, and the manner in which the GD&T symbols are drawn.
Both witnesses also testified that those similarities extended beyond structure and design to include many idiosyncratic design choices and inadvertent design flaws. For example, both Geodraft and Draft-Pak offer "straightness tolerance" menu choices of "flat" and "cylindric," unusual in view of the use by ANSI Y14.5M of the terms "linear" and "circular," respectively. As another example, neither program requires [*18] the user to provide "angularity tolerance" secondary datum to create a feature control frame--a technical oversight that causes creation of an incomplete symbol. In sum, Mr. Spencer testified: "Based on my summary analysis of how the programs function, their errors from the standard and their similar nomenclatures reflecting nonstandard items, I would say that the Draft-Pak [for DOS] is a derivative copy of a Geodraft product."
Mr. Ford and others also demonstrated to the jury the operation of Geodraft and both the DOS and Windows versions of the accused Draft-Pak. Those software demonstrations undoubtedly conveyed information to the jury that the paper record on appeal cannot easily replicate. This court, therefore, is especially reluctant to substitute its judgment for that of the jury on the sufficiency and interpretation of that evidence. In any event, the record fully supports the jury's verdict that Baystate breached its contract with Mr. Bowers.
Baystate does not contest the contract damages amount on appeal. Thus, this court sustains the district court's award of contract damages. Mr. Bowers, however, argues that the district court abused its discretion by dropping copyright [*19] damages from the combined damage award. To the contrary, this court perceives no abuse of discretion.
The shrink-wrap license agreement prohibited, inter alia, all reverse engineering of Mr. Bowers' software, protection encompassing but more extensive than copyright protection, which prohibits only certain copying. Mr. Bowers' copyright and contract claims both rest on Baystate's copying of Mr. Bowers' software. Following the district court's instructions, the jury considered and awarded damages on each separately. This was entirely appropriate. The law is clear that the jury may award separate damages for each claim, "leaving it to the judge to make appropriate adjustments to avoid double recovery." Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 32 (1st Cir. 1999) (citing Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 451 n.3, 122 L. Ed. 2d 247, 113 S. Ct. 884 (1993)); see also Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 825 F. Supp. 340, 346 (D. Mass. 1993) ("So long as a plaintiff is not twice compensated for a single injury, a judgment may be comprised of elements drawn from separate . . . remedies."), aff'd in relevant part, [*20] 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994). In this case, the breach of contract damages arose from the same copying and included the same lost sales that form the basis for the copyright damages. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by omitting from the final damage award the duplicative copyright damages. Because this court affirms the district court's omission of the copyright damages, this court need not reach the merits of Mr. Bowers' copyright infringement claim.
If memory serves (and it's been about a year since I had an Airport base station) the interface was very good and let you monitor who was using your bandwidth, etc.
As I recall, it made it very easy to require a password or enable 802.11b encryption, etc.
Why don't they start implementing the "advanced" barcode tracking things that UPS (and presumably others) use on their shipments?
I know nothing about the logos, but they have dots all over and a bull's-eye in the middle... I would think that they might store more (or more useful) data than a simple 12-digit barcode...
...and if they're going to upgrade the standard, why not bypass 13 and go to n? (where 'n' is whatever the UPS codes can handle)
I wonder if they'll use the data to tweak ads on TiVo so that our favorite shows don't get the advertising revenue they deserve... or maybe so they do!
For instance - every night from 6:00p - 7:00p, my Tivo is set up to record MadTV on TNN. Unless it's a funny or relevant ad, I zap through it. If these ad companies figure this out, will they stop sponsoring it?
On another topic, maybe it'll make TV more time-blind as far as ad revenues go. Since TNN repeats the weeknight MadTVs at midnight, maybe advertisers will notice that they get more bang for their buck by using cheap "overnight" ad time normally used by items seen in the "As Seen on TV!" store in the mall.
Will this bring about a revolution (Tivolution!) in advertising strategy? Will more stations put "less popular but still marketable ad time" shows at 3am under the presumption that "yes, nobody will watch it right now, but lots of people Tivo the shows and the ad space is just as valuable as primetime if that's when they're watching it" ?
Slashdot Mirror
even better - a friend of a friend of a friend (I know, it's getting farfetched) actually machined a set of screws that were purportedly somehow double-threaded so that (literally) you could turn it any which way and it would properly thread and go in.
Supposedly.
The one for this claim is probably covered by a very thick NDA, but generally as part of any settlement, the written agreement is a contract that offers the plaintiff money in consideration for an agreement to discharge any and all claims [arising out of these circumstances] against the defendant now and forever.
As far as I know, in the absence of fraud, duress or undue influence, he can win the lottery tomorrow, end up a million dollars richer, and there's nothing the RIAA could do about it.
Anyone from RPI knows about the 'Tute Screw. As parent said, RPI has, at best, a love-hate relationship with its students.
Oh - and just what is a Tute Screw? I have yet to see one, but it describes the general approach of the administration to the students - no matter which way you turn it, it always goes in...
I think it's interesting that California chose Lexis, but perhaps not as ominous as it would seem. As part of their obligation to provide true public access to the law, many (or maybe most) courts have law libraries.
Yes, it's on paper, yes, it's not searchable from the comfort of your home... but I think that's what you pay for when you get the access through Lexis or Westlaw's online service.
Many law libraries even have searchable case law on archived CDs, or cheap/free alternatives (like Loislaw and Lexis One.
Remember, lots of legal treatises (and perhaps some other states' "official publications") are published by LexisNexis, as are any books that used to be published under the Matthew Bender name...
What this means:
Unless a specific enabling statute for a set of regulations directs otherwise, a federal agency is required to have a general "notice and comment" period in rulemaking. What that means is entirely up to the agency, and sometimes agencies go through internal rulemaking to determine their rulemaking procedures. It all goes to supplement the legitimacy of the regulative process, and agencies generally err on the side of more comment than less. So long as there is a rational basis for their rulemaking, it is generally upheld on review.
I wouldn't blame this on the Bush administration, I'd just say that it's possible that it would be easier for agencies to ensure that people who submit comments are (a) actually people, and (b) accountable to their comments.
Paper carries a lot more weight anyway - if you feel strongly enough about proposed legislation, read up on it online, then write a letter and drop it in the mail.
As much as I like to not be disturbed on my cell phone at times, (a) I can ignore it, and (b) if the various "do not call" lists are effective (and GOD i hope they will be) what's the difference of a house phone?
:)
I mean - I use my cell phone as my primary phone anyway. I'm used to screening calls with it. In some ways, I would be more accessible (in a good way) if people could call directory assistance and get my number.
Just a thought.
that said, I'm waiting for the 15" update too...
That's the whole point of the Daubert decision mentioned in the article. Judges are supposed to act as gatekeepers for opinion testimony. If the proferred expert is helpful, duly qualified, there's a factual basis for the opinion, and the opinion is reliable (beyond the old Frye standard), there's a strong likelihood that the judge will let the expert testimony in.
Juries are finders of fact, not law - if a judge finds that even a qualified expert's testimony would be irrelevant, confusing, or cumulative, she can keep it out.
It wasn't crap... I think they need to improve a little on some of their interpretations, though...
:)
My biggest criticism of BSG has been (as with many sci-fi programs) that they speak English but come up with their own units of measurement (centons, etc.). Kudos to them for trying to make it interesting by creating everything unique to the series, but sometimes it was just hokey.
I have to admit, though - seeing the Cylon in costume on an episode of (and, I believe, the opening credits to) the A-Team, having a brief exchange with Dirk Benedict, was priceless.
I think that if a scifi writer is going to allow some "inaccuracies" in (like the English language) they need to be consistent and talk about minutes and seconds and parsecs and lightyears, too... Just my opinion.
Looks like Dell is finally starting to catch up to Apple. My 1999 Lombard G3 Powerbook doesn't seem to have one, and they started to disappear with the advent of the original iMacs, if not earlier...
Reminds me of the old MS-bashing comment, Windows 95 (or 98 or whatever) still hasn't caught up to Mac 1984..."
From the German Website under "Features:"
* Microsoft Windows operating system
* Internet connectivity
* 8 in color VGA display
I'll stick to Millenium Force, thanks...
I don't know much about salvage rights and admiralty law, but maybe there's a relevant portion of some state statute regulating shipping and commerce on the Hudson and what happens to sunken ships? *shrug
More interestingly - what about GE and the whole PCB issue? I see a few problems with anybody digging anything up on a large scale:
a.) Scenic Hudson (or maybe it was another group, I forget) doesn't want anybody stirring up silt in the Hudson for the purposes of GE dredging the PCB-filled mud, so I can't think that they'd think lightly of lots of treasure hunters doing ths same thing.
b.) GE argued from the start that the biggest harm in removing the silt would be that it stirred up all of the PCBs which, over time, have become more benign (or at least less latent on the surface of the mud). Stirring them up, they said, would put them back into the fish, etc... this might relieve GE from its primary argument against dredging, so I've got to think they'd be considering it carefully.
c.) No matter what Scenic Hudson and GE think today about the Hudson, it is well-established that the silt is still chock full of PCBs, and as such, would qualify for treatment as a "hazardous material" upon its removal from the Hudson. Part of the dredging issue was figuring out what lucky Upstate NY town was going to host the geomembrane-protected "silt dump" for disposal of the stuff so it wouldn't leach into the ground and contaminate groundwater, etc. The rule of NIMBY has applied thus far, as far as I know... It would therefore follow that anybody trying to dig up ships would run into a big problem of what to do with the dirt they dug through. (Granted, it's not the whole Hudson, but it still creates an issue if you do anything but leave it there.)
- Buffy's success at finding a mate versus others' successes (hers should be assumed to be higher, which would increase the incidence of vampire-killing traits in the population),
- the (Dubya) Bush administration's environmental policy, and whether increased pollution is more harmful to the living or undead, and
- If you introduce population genetics to "The WB Frog," will he suddenly change sex and have the potential to bear young (as do amphibians when populations are all female, i think)?
the plot thickens...
Read them here, or the AG's office press release here.
Also, a nice timeline/chart of the litigation is here.
Tom Reilly is a nice guy. He even shook my hand in my office! (Granted, it was really his office... that I just happen to work in, but he was still nice enough to stop by and say hi.)
It should also be noted by anyone who accuses him of doing this for votes that he ran unopposed in November's election.
On the other hand, maybe they're just playing the odds that if they throw 100 people together and provide the infrastructure and cell phones, one of them is bound to come up with enough of a marketable idea to make a bajillion dollars.
I should point out that in anticipation of iChat, Apple worked out something with AOL so that users could login to AIM using their mac.com (now .mac) userid and pw.
Although I know little about the AIM client and software, it would seem that all they've done is add a method to log into a new group of userids/pws.
...the metropolitan police are running out of places to hide the bodies and simply need to figure out the "dimensionally transcendental" nature of the TARDIS in order to have more room.
In light of this, I wonder why the people with the patent on the tire-pressure-checker have never gone after the BBC for infringing on their design for the sonic screwdriver!
The real culprit here is the broken Chameleon Circuit. It was under warranty, but alas - the last time he was near an authorized OEM service station, the good Doctor had to leave Gallifrey in haste before someone tried to go and make him Lord President again...
And remember - the REAL Matrix doesn't involve a kid whose only line is "there is no spoon."
Dr. Who rocks. Only he could go back to the beginning of time and jettison 1/3 of the TARDIS (which is asserted in many previous episodes to be infinite) to escape from the gravitational pull that would become the Big Bang. Silly Zero Room.
While it would still behoove Southwest to make a no-frills version (read: Lynx-viewable) of their page available, I have to agree - PICK UP THE PHONE!
And why didn't they pursue the "reasonable accommodation" argument on the theory that dialing the phone number is just as potent as using the website, and is functionally equivalent when you look at the end result.
Web method:
1.) Go to web site
2.) Scroll through things, select flight
3.) Purchase tickets.
Phone method:
1.) Dial number
2.) Talk to human or push buttons, select flight
3.) Purchase tickets.
Am I missing something here?
and i just wanted to be the 500th. Why not try a digital camera with zoom? It's more conspicuous than a surreptitious sweep of a page with the "mouse" scanners was, but hell - you can see exactly what you're going to get before you take the picture...
Hopefully they'll use this promotion to joyfully announce the discontinuation of "Pepsi Blue."
Incidentally, I have found Pepsi Blue to be useful for removing stains from my toilet bowl, and not much else. It is certainly unfit for human consumption.
The LEXIS headnotes: The portion of the decision in which they mention ProCD and the shrinkwrap license claims:
If memory serves (and it's been about a year since I had an Airport base station) the interface was very good and let you monitor who was using your bandwidth, etc.
As I recall, it made it very easy to require a password or enable 802.11b encryption, etc.
because he found out the great secret of TV anchors...
Why don't they start implementing the "advanced" barcode tracking things that UPS (and presumably others) use on their shipments?
I know nothing about the logos, but they have dots all over and a bull's-eye in the middle... I would think that they might store more (or more useful) data than a simple 12-digit barcode...
...and if they're going to upgrade the standard, why not bypass 13 and go to n? (where 'n' is whatever the UPS codes can handle)
I wonder if they'll use the data to tweak ads on TiVo so that our favorite shows don't get the advertising revenue they deserve... or maybe so they do!
For instance - every night from 6:00p - 7:00p, my Tivo is set up to record MadTV on TNN. Unless it's a funny or relevant ad, I zap through it. If these ad companies figure this out, will they stop sponsoring it?
On another topic, maybe it'll make TV more time-blind as far as ad revenues go. Since TNN repeats the weeknight MadTVs at midnight, maybe advertisers will notice that they get more bang for their buck by using cheap "overnight" ad time normally used by items seen in the "As Seen on TV!" store in the mall.
Will this bring about a revolution (Tivolution!) in advertising strategy? Will more stations put "less popular but still marketable ad time" shows at 3am under the presumption that "yes, nobody will watch it right now, but lots of people Tivo the shows and the ad space is just as valuable as primetime if that's when they're watching it" ?