Just my 2 cents. I was in a class last semester with a few staffers. I made it a point to ask the best way to indicate preferences to representatives or senators. They all said that it doesn't matter - snail mail, email, fax, calling - they just tally it up.
It seems that a detailed letter is not even required. Clearly state your address, so that they know you are someone who can re-elect them, keep each correspondence to one issue, state your preference that your representative/senator support or not support it. Maybe one sentence of your reasons to ensure that and the terms support/not support aren't misread and maybe one that states you intend to follow the voting as you are very interested in the issue.
Unless you have an amazing insight or take on the issue that you can't resist writing about, I would think any other thing you write would be ignored.
All this posting on unethicalness reminds me of a televised speech of the author of a book entitled The Cheating Culture. His whole thesis seems to be that the US has become a country of individuals who are willing to get ahead by cheating/unethical behavior... since they can.
Haven't read the book, so I don't know if it is good or not.
It always gets me curious when people mention first hand experience with a school, company, or whatever but don't mention it. Especially when it is past tense (and presumably concerns of tit for tat are no longer present). So I'm curious if you can say which school you went to. Maybe others from the same school might want to join forces with you and sign a petition or something. I am finishing up at George Washington U. myself and would be interested in adding my name / joining with others to fight the good fight when such issues come up.
I just had a thought - it would probably be much more effective for you to send your letter additionally to the school newspaper(s). You could do it by writing a second letter which didn't mention the one to the powers that be, or maybe you could do it as an open letter to the school or something. It would probably be most effective to call up the editor and speak to him/her - you can even give your name and number to be interviewed if you are willing to appear in any article. I write for my school newspaper and even got to interview the university's general counsel about their policies on the RIAA (about a year ago). An article on Napster would be a nice followup.
My second request is that you post a copy of your letter before sending it - with any names deleted if you prefer - so that others have a basis to build on. So many times I read about things which get my interest, but then I fail to act as I don't have the time to write a good letter, research the background of the issue, verify that all citations are correct, etc.
GWU takes over 50% of the tuition of law students and uses it for the benefit of the rest of the University. At least that was the status last I heard. It even sparked a lawsuit, which the students lost.
I guess they're doing something right with what they let the Law School keep as we climbed in ranking this past year.
However, we have a library many say is the worst in the area for law schools and we are left with a computer room so bad, many go to the undergraduate library to use the computers.
How about letting people pick what programs their tax money will not be used for?
This would likely not force any budget changes unless a really popular movement got underway to unfund some project or other. Of course, groups would be calling for this all the time (Jessie Jackson comes to mind as someone who would likely be quite vocal about suggestions I would think).
But it would let people feel good about stiffing their pet peeve projects and would give government new data they could use to track citizen concerns.
It would be quite easy, have a list of all government projects, agencies, etc. with unique identification numbers. Post it on the Internet and at public schools and libraries. Let people write in as many as they wish.
While I don't think this would ever make any proposed budget invalid, vetting a proposed budget against the wishes of the taxpayers would likely be incredible computation.
Main Entry: integrity
Pronunciation: in-'te-gr&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY
2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS
synonym see HONESTY
Under 1, I guess both Bush and Moore could have integrity. As I don't think Bush has any artisic output, he could claim integrity by adherence to a moral code. His moral code would presumably include allowing the rich to profit at the expense of the environment, average people, other countries, and so on. In this sense, yes, he seems to have integrity, but I would say he fails somewhat as he felt he had to sell his tax reduction plan as benefitting everyone (when it has been shown that it benefits the rich at the expense of the middle class - see Perfectly Legal). I don't know, does painting your actions as being different from what they really are violate integrity? It doesn't seem to be in the definition, so I guess Bush does have integrity.
With Moore, I can't comment as I am generally unfamiliar with the man or his work. If I can get F911 to download, I will have at least a start.
Bear with me. With IPv9, they essentially use a superset of the system the rest of the world uses. Padding addresses of IPv4 and IPv6 packages will make them compatable with the Chinese system, right? Thus a satellite feed could be used, the addresses padded, and surrepticiously put on the Chinese internet. The gov. will certainly be able to detect it and put a stop to it, but leaks could presumably occur from time to time.
With IPv3, the Chinese system would be a subset of the rest of the world's and thus wouldn't be able to address everything simultaneously. Thus any covert hookup wouldn't function. Much better for security, I would think.
As it seems your antagonists are possibly African American, a somewhat ontopic issue that I just ran across in searching is that Bill Cosby has been harshly criticizing black youth for their street behavior. (A washington post article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A245 94-2004Jul2.html, but I don't know how to do the google partner thing. The google search is here.)
I've read all the replies to your post with some interest.
(nonserious) What about pulling the Pepsi commerical thing (the guy plays classical music to get the shoppers out so he can run and buy a Pepsi) - use your money to buy a bigger system than him, and play music that drowns them out. (I know, it will only escalate things to much worse)
(semiserious) The opposite approach - why not build a noise cancellation system? You might even be able to put a wireless microphone on your car down near the source, and then properly delay and amplify the signal to cancel out their music. Car sterios do this, why couldn't you? You could even filter it and just correct the bass frequencies, which in my experience can be the worst.
Worst comes to worst, build a study chamber inside a larger chamber. Have the inner chamber magnetically supported by the outer chamber and a vacuum in between. (You guys may laugh, but I remember seeing an odd ad for an egg-shaped solitude chamber, maybe in Popular Mechanics, designed for the man of the house to seclude himself from his family. I wonder if any of these ever were sold.)
Do you think that the EFF can have any influence on the U.S. Patent Office? Are there other actions that are more likely to work?
As an ex-Examiner and law student, I have some observations on this.
First, Congress and the PTO are somewhat isolated. The way Congress and divisions of the government make law, as a topic, is called administrative law. This works by Congress making general federal statutes (Title 15 in the case of patents) and the right to make regulations to implement the goals of the federal statues fall to the governmental division concerned (with patents, the USPTO).
So, to influence patent policy, the first level is to influence the USPTO Commissioner. He could likely get the regulations governing how patents are actually examined, as well as the infrastructure withing the PTO, changed to improve the system. Most new Commissioners make changes anyway. As the Commissioner is appointed by the President, he ultimately has a lot of control as well. I'm not sure, but I expect that the Senate has to approve any appointment to the USPTO Commissioner, so in that instance, so contacting the President and your Senators at appropriate times may be influential, but this only occurs every so many years.
The higher level is to influence Congress to pass a bill to amend Title 35 (that part of federal statutes which deals with patents). Here you are up against all the big corporations who benefit from the present situation (IBM, MS, etc.). Still, lobbying is a tool and keeping up pressure effectively (i.e. not calling your representative every week, but applying pressure in lobbying-savvy ways, as by the guidance of an experienced Washingtonian lobbyist).
I would think that setting out goals for change, then adequately supporting them with evidence would be a good tool. Remember that the Constitution states that Congress is to "promote" science and the useful arts. The idea is to prove that some aspect of the current policy does not promote the development of technology, but retards it in some way, then Congress might be open to changing the statutes. I believe this happened with the so-called "submarine patents" - the patent applications that were in the PTO for decades and would get issued allowing the inventor to sue users of mature industries and, basically, extort vast amounts of money. (If this topic intrests you, search for the name Lemelson" - he built a multimillion dollar industry off of this tactic). As I recall, though, Congress modified the patent statutes to discourage submarine patents during the phase to harmonize US patent law with European practice, so the retarding nature of submarine patents may not have been such a big motivation for change.
If you really want to change patent law, the more effective way is as follows. Get elected President with a Congress stacked in your favor. Then do the following:
1) Pressure Congress to amend the Patent Act according to your tastes.
2) Use your treaty making ability to enter into treaties as a run around of Congress for any changes thet don't get implemented. This requires Senate approval but avoids the House.
3) Appoint a PTO Commissioner who will implement your changes in a way you like.
So, will the EFF be effective? What else can be done? Doing something (being heard) is better than not doing anything. Can the average/.er do something as well? Of course. The best thing might be to follow patent issues and contact the appropriate party (President, Congress, PTO Commissioner) at the appropriate time (just before action is taken). It would be nice if there was a companion website to/. that would encourage action on issues of importance to/.ers. I.e. allow postings of example letters, addresses for contacting, discussion of the issues. Sometimes this is done in/. itself - people sometimes post example letters or addresses of the concerned politicians. Maybe we can encourage a new
A deal is a deal - at least it used to be back when we knew the definition of "is."
The first question is whether Toys-R-Us violated any contract terms by it's behavior such as not having toys in stock or whatever. If so, Amazon may have a good position.
Even without a direct contract violation, the courts have a concept of "best efforts" which might apply. To my knowledge, the concept of best efforts was first used in a Lucy Lady Duff-Gordon case where the exclusive US licensee was required to use it's best efforts to make profits. Since Toys-R-Us had an exclusive right to sell toys on Amazon, maybe the same doctrine would apply.
Damn, funny, informative, and insightful at the same time.
Can't mod up as I've already posted.
Seriously, what is the reason there is not a minimum time for review till bills can be passed? Shouldn't the final text of bills be public long enough for the public to be able to provide some feedback before voting? Whouldn't that at least allow somewhat for greater public approval?
Hah! A cooling off period for legislation.
Doubt that it would change much for bills that don't get media attention, but it might have influenced the Patriot Act.
If it's a fine, it would go to the government, who else?
But with proof, whoever owns the copyright can sue for damages - currently the owner can claim actual damages or statutory damages (which currently can reach $150K for willful infringement for a one time infringement).
Moreover, a police officer does not have any duty under federal law to warn or protect any particular member of the public unless either (1 ) a "special relationship" exists between the victim and the criminal or between the victim and the state or (2 ) the victim faces a special danger not applicable to the public at large.
The first interracial kiss on TV Nov. 22, 1968 took place between Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) on an episode of "Star Trek."
I don't believe this is true. I browsed an autobiography of Nichelle Nichols once. She wrote that they filmed two versions of the scene, one where they kissed actually, and one where it was faked. They even had NBC (?) personnel present to witness the filming (she hated that, apparently). As I recall, she wrote that the faked once aired so that NBC could deny that it was an interracial kiss, in case of any backlash.
I hope you were being sarcastic, but I fear you were not.
I am so sick of this war on terrorism. We're wasting 100s of billions of taxpayer money and for what? Reduced civil rights (I just can't believe that in America, a citizen can now be held without being charged and without contact with the outside world - is this a nightmare?), toppling two legitimate goverments of other countries (Ok, the Taliban didn't hand over Osama on a silver platter so they became a sacrifical pig with the blessing of the world), 1000s of innocents dying (in said aforementioned two countries)...
We've made our point, gotten our revenge, and wiped out a significant part of the major terrorism networks in the process. Isn't it enough already? But, if we're going to continue to spend this money to protect lives, why not make it more productive?
(I know, I'm arguing that the war on terrorism has not saved all that many lives. While 'what if' alternate historial outcomes are unknowable, we can look to the past for some indication. So how often has the US been subject to externally-originated acts of terrorism? And how many have died in them total? Not all that many, compared to other forms of premature death. Sure, the deaths in 911 were tragic and unforgiveable, but so are any other premature deaths, IMHO (traffic deaths, murder victims, etc.). Look at the 911 hijackers - they're attempts to get pilot training were almost comical - it's really amazing they succeeded at their goal. And look how long they prepared. My point here is that I don't think the terrorists are capable of sustained mass production terrorism. [I'm talking international terrorism against the US as opposed to the Palestinians, who are quite good at mass production terrorism])
As for alternatives to spending our taxmoney, just one example:
Every year over 42K people lose their lives in traffic accidents in the US. That's what, 16 times the number of deaths in 911? And it happens every year. Imagine how many lives would be saved if 100 billion per year was plowed into traffic safety (such as pedestrian walks over or under dangerous intersections, air bags that don't kill toddlers, etc.).
There are already cases on this. WhenU.com has been sued by at least three companies for this, with different outcomes.
The issue here, as explained in the article, is trademark ("TM") infringement. To get TM infringement, one element is that there must be use in commerce. Spyware of this sort operates, as I understand, by having a list of keywords against which, for example, user queries can be compared. In WhenU's case, it had a list which included the TMs of it's competitors (it's clients' competitors, actually).
One court, in N.Y., granted an injunction holding that WhenU used it's competitor's TMs in commerce in two ways - one, in the file against which it compared keywords and, second, in that WhenU's window popped up when the competitor's webpage did (the court thought WhenU played off of the competitor, I think). Personally, I don't get the court's second point at all. WhenU did nothing to get any competitor's website to come up. An analogy might be if a business erected a sign near
it's competitor's location - I am not familiar with any caselaw on this point, but I would imagine it wouldn't be TM infringement.
Another court, in Virginia, found the opposite, that inclusion of the TM in the keyword file was not "use in commerce".
A third jurisdiction, Michigan, sided with Vir. in the third WhenU case.
But this case is in Maine, so I guess it could go either way.
If even one serial killer is caught because of the video cameras and the GPS tracking, it will be worth it, right? No more kidnappings, right?
I guess some people, many people, apparently think yes.
In evaluating such systems, you also have to figure in the bad consequences of the system. Like what about cops abusing the system such as by rigging the system to frame somebody?
It's happening already, in a way, with the red light cameras. Alot of people who don't do the violations are likely paying when they don't have to. I did, figuring if you spent the time in court you'd have to divulge who did drive and they'd go after that person, which in my case would've meant that I paid anyway. Fortunately, that's not the case, but you do have to go to court and contest it - maybe not worth it for some people even with the points if there are any.
With your teenager driving law, what about if a teenager has to walk because he can't ride with a friend due to the passenger law and he ends up getting hit? Something like that's bound to happen sooner or later. (I'm from D.C. and it still sticks in my mind about that guy who visited for some reason and was hit on the street - he lost an arm because of it.)
So, on the one side, you have 4 deaths due to loud music. Assuming these are the only deaths due to more than one passenger being in the car (might not be the case), you'd have to amortise the 4 deaths over the total time cars have been driven by teens in your city - likely a very low rate of death per year (let's say 60 years of driving, 4 deaths = 0.067 deaths per year due to overcrowding).
On the other side goes any injuries resulting from kids having to walk (hopefully very low, but as the recent accident in D.C. shows, it happens), plus all the lost time, missed appointments (kids will be late, especially if they have to walk), and simple loss of the ability for kids to do things if they don't have rides.
Not saying your teenager laws are wrong, but the city's characterization that it saves 4 lives per year with no mentioned downside doesn't tell the whole truth.
Not the same thing, but reminds me of what happened locally due to 911. Lots of metro riders walk into the Pentagon City mall through the parking garage entrance. After 911, they had security there to prevent this for a week or so (why I don't know - driving in was ok, walking not. What, they thought walkers could conceal bombs?). The thing was, with the construction at the time, the only way to walk around was to walk a few hundered feet facing ongoing rush hour traffic with no shoulder space. I almost wished an accident happened so that the mall would get sued - would've served them right.
I never heard about this. Can you provide any cites?
For a spectacled intellectual, I always thought he made a pretty good idol to mimic in the woman-seduction arena. What with his multiple kids, some illegitimate and all...
As I posted on another discussion a long time ago, I attended a DVD Conference some two years ago. One of the tours featured was of NIST. They have carried out extensive testing of CDs (and related versions of that medium) to determine reliability. The weird thing is, for some reason, they wouldn't publish the result. I asked why, but I forget what it was.
When they are using taxpayer money to do the tests, I don't see why the results (1) can't be disclosed and (2) shouldn't be disclosed (we paid for it!).
Slashdot Mirror
...as far as the law is concerned.
That's true for the criminal case. However, he was found guilty in the civil one.
It seems that a detailed letter is not even required. Clearly state your address, so that they know you are someone who can re-elect them, keep each correspondence to one issue, state your preference that your representative/senator support or not support it. Maybe one sentence of your reasons to ensure that and the terms support/not support aren't misread and maybe one that states you intend to follow the voting as you are very interested in the issue.
Unless you have an amazing insight or take on the issue that you can't resist writing about, I would think any other thing you write would be ignored.
Haven't read the book, so I don't know if it is good or not.
I just had a thought - it would probably be much more effective for you to send your letter additionally to the school newspaper(s). You could do it by writing a second letter which didn't mention the one to the powers that be, or maybe you could do it as an open letter to the school or something. It would probably be most effective to call up the editor and speak to him/her - you can even give your name and number to be interviewed if you are willing to appear in any article. I write for my school newspaper and even got to interview the university's general counsel about their policies on the RIAA (about a year ago). An article on Napster would be a nice followup.
My second request is that you post a copy of your letter before sending it - with any names deleted if you prefer - so that others have a basis to build on. So many times I read about things which get my interest, but then I fail to act as I don't have the time to write a good letter, research the background of the issue, verify that all citations are correct, etc.
your imaginations might be right.
GWU takes over 50% of the tuition of law students and uses it for the benefit of the rest of the University. At least that was the status last I heard. It even sparked a lawsuit, which the students lost.
I guess they're doing something right with what they let the Law School keep as we climbed in ranking this past year.
However, we have a library many say is the worst in the area for law schools and we are left with a computer room so bad, many go to the undergraduate library to use the computers.
Damn, if we only had some more of that money ...
This would likely not force any budget changes unless a really popular movement got underway to unfund some project or other. Of course, groups would be calling for this all the time (Jessie Jackson comes to mind as someone who would likely be quite vocal about suggestions I would think).
But it would let people feel good about stiffing their pet peeve projects and would give government new data they could use to track citizen concerns.
It would be quite easy, have a list of all government projects, agencies, etc. with unique identification numbers. Post it on the Internet and at public schools and libraries. Let people write in as many as they wish.
While I don't think this would ever make any proposed budget invalid, vetting a proposed budget against the wishes of the taxpayers would likely be incredible computation.
Main Entry: integrity
Pronunciation: in-'te-gr&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY
2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS
synonym see HONESTY
Under 1, I guess both Bush and Moore could have integrity. As I don't think Bush has any artisic output, he could claim integrity by adherence to a moral code. His moral code would presumably include allowing the rich to profit at the expense of the environment, average people, other countries, and so on. In this sense, yes, he seems to have integrity, but I would say he fails somewhat as he felt he had to sell his tax reduction plan as benefitting everyone (when it has been shown that it benefits the rich at the expense of the middle class - see Perfectly Legal). I don't know, does painting your actions as being different from what they really are violate integrity? It doesn't seem to be in the definition, so I guess Bush does have integrity.
With Moore, I can't comment as I am generally unfamiliar with the man or his work. If I can get F911 to download, I will have at least a start.
Bear with me. With IPv9, they essentially use a superset of the system the rest of the world uses. Padding addresses of IPv4 and IPv6 packages will make them compatable with the Chinese system, right? Thus a satellite feed could be used, the addresses padded, and surrepticiously put on the Chinese internet. The gov. will certainly be able to detect it and put a stop to it, but leaks could presumably occur from time to time.
With IPv3, the Chinese system would be a subset of the rest of the world's and thus wouldn't be able to address everything simultaneously. Thus any covert hookup wouldn't function. Much better for security, I would think.
As it seems your antagonists are possibly African American, a somewhat ontopic issue that I just ran across in searching is that Bill Cosby has been harshly criticizing black youth for their street behavior. (A washington post article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A245 94-2004Jul2.html, but I don't know how to do the google partner thing. The google search is here.)
(nonserious) What about pulling the Pepsi commerical thing (the guy plays classical music to get the shoppers out so he can run and buy a Pepsi) - use your money to buy a bigger system than him, and play music that drowns them out. (I know, it will only escalate things to much worse)
(semiserious) The opposite approach - why not build a noise cancellation system? You might even be able to put a wireless microphone on your car down near the source, and then properly delay and amplify the signal to cancel out their music. Car sterios do this, why couldn't you? You could even filter it and just correct the bass frequencies, which in my experience can be the worst.
Worst comes to worst, build a study chamber inside a larger chamber. Have the inner chamber magnetically supported by the outer chamber and a vacuum in between. (You guys may laugh, but I remember seeing an odd ad for an egg-shaped solitude chamber, maybe in Popular Mechanics, designed for the man of the house to seclude himself from his family. I wonder if any of these ever were sold.)
Since they probably sink all their dough into their cars, they might lose their cars in the settlement. :)
As an ex-Examiner and law student, I have some observations on this.
First, Congress and the PTO are somewhat isolated. The way Congress and divisions of the government make law, as a topic, is called administrative law. This works by Congress making general federal statutes (Title 15 in the case of patents) and the right to make regulations to implement the goals of the federal statues fall to the governmental division concerned (with patents, the USPTO).
So, to influence patent policy, the first level is to influence the USPTO Commissioner. He could likely get the regulations governing how patents are actually examined, as well as the infrastructure withing the PTO, changed to improve the system. Most new Commissioners make changes anyway. As the Commissioner is appointed by the President, he ultimately has a lot of control as well. I'm not sure, but I expect that the Senate has to approve any appointment to the USPTO Commissioner, so in that instance, so contacting the President and your Senators at appropriate times may be influential, but this only occurs every so many years.
The higher level is to influence Congress to pass a bill to amend Title 35 (that part of federal statutes which deals with patents). Here you are up against all the big corporations who benefit from the present situation (IBM, MS, etc.). Still, lobbying is a tool and keeping up pressure effectively (i.e. not calling your representative every week, but applying pressure in lobbying-savvy ways, as by the guidance of an experienced Washingtonian lobbyist).
I would think that setting out goals for change, then adequately supporting them with evidence would be a good tool. Remember that the Constitution states that Congress is to "promote" science and the useful arts. The idea is to prove that some aspect of the current policy does not promote the development of technology, but retards it in some way, then Congress might be open to changing the statutes. I believe this happened with the so-called "submarine patents" - the patent applications that were in the PTO for decades and would get issued allowing the inventor to sue users of mature industries and, basically, extort vast amounts of money. (If this topic intrests you, search for the name Lemelson" - he built a multimillion dollar industry off of this tactic). As I recall, though, Congress modified the patent statutes to discourage submarine patents during the phase to harmonize US patent law with European practice, so the retarding nature of submarine patents may not have been such a big motivation for change.
If you really want to change patent law, the more effective way is as follows. Get elected President with a Congress stacked in your favor. Then do the following:
1) Pressure Congress to amend the Patent Act according to your tastes.
2) Use your treaty making ability to enter into treaties as a run around of Congress for any changes thet don't get implemented. This requires Senate approval but avoids the House.
3) Appoint a PTO Commissioner who will implement your changes in a way you like.
So, will the EFF be effective? What else can be done? Doing something (being heard) is better than not doing anything. Can the average /.er do something as well? Of course. The best thing might be to follow patent issues and contact the appropriate party (President, Congress, PTO Commissioner) at the appropriate time (just before action is taken). It would be nice if there was a companion website to /. that would encourage action on issues of importance to /.ers. I.e. allow postings of example letters, addresses for contacting, discussion of the issues. Sometimes this is done in /. itself - people sometimes post example letters or addresses of the concerned politicians. Maybe we can encourage a new
The first question is whether Toys-R-Us violated any contract terms by it's behavior such as not having toys in stock or whatever. If so, Amazon may have a good position.
Even without a direct contract violation, the courts have a concept of "best efforts" which might apply. To my knowledge, the concept of best efforts was first used in a Lucy Lady Duff-Gordon case where the exclusive US licensee was required to use it's best efforts to make profits. Since Toys-R-Us had an exclusive right to sell toys on Amazon, maybe the same doctrine would apply.
Can't mod up as I've already posted.
Seriously, what is the reason there is not a minimum time for review till bills can be passed? Shouldn't the final text of bills be public long enough for the public to be able to provide some feedback before voting? Whouldn't that at least allow somewhat for greater public approval?
Hah! A cooling off period for legislation.
Doubt that it would change much for bills that don't get media attention, but it might have influenced the Patriot Act.
But with proof, whoever owns the copyright can sue for damages - currently the owner can claim actual damages or statutory damages (which currently can reach $150K for willful infringement for a one time infringement).
Hmm. From a court case:
Moreover, a police officer does not have any duty under federal law to warn or protect any particular member of the public unless either (1 ) a "special relationship" exists between the victim and the criminal or between the victim and the state or (2 ) the victim faces a special danger not applicable to the public at large.
Ensley v. Soper, 142 F.3d 1402 (1998).
FTC's statement on the enforceability of privacy policies
FTC's suit against Toysmart for attempting to violate their privacy policy. And the settlement.
I don't believe this is true. I browsed an autobiography of Nichelle Nichols once. She wrote that they filmed two versions of the scene, one where they kissed actually, and one where it was faked. They even had NBC (?) personnel present to witness the filming (she hated that, apparently). As I recall, she wrote that the faked once aired so that NBC could deny that it was an interracial kiss, in case of any backlash.
I am so sick of this war on terrorism. We're wasting 100s of billions of taxpayer money and for what? Reduced civil rights (I just can't believe that in America, a citizen can now be held without being charged and without contact with the outside world - is this a nightmare?), toppling two legitimate goverments of other countries (Ok, the Taliban didn't hand over Osama on a silver platter so they became a sacrifical pig with the blessing of the world), 1000s of innocents dying (in said aforementioned two countries) ...
We've made our point, gotten our revenge, and wiped out a significant part of the major terrorism networks in the process. Isn't it enough already? But, if we're going to continue to spend this money to protect lives, why not make it more productive?
(I know, I'm arguing that the war on terrorism has not saved all that many lives. While 'what if' alternate historial outcomes are unknowable, we can look to the past for some indication. So how often has the US been subject to externally-originated acts of terrorism? And how many have died in them total? Not all that many, compared to other forms of premature death. Sure, the deaths in 911 were tragic and unforgiveable, but so are any other premature deaths, IMHO (traffic deaths, murder victims, etc.). Look at the 911 hijackers - they're attempts to get pilot training were almost comical - it's really amazing they succeeded at their goal. And look how long they prepared. My point here is that I don't think the terrorists are capable of sustained mass production terrorism. [I'm talking international terrorism against the US as opposed to the Palestinians, who are quite good at mass production terrorism])
As for alternatives to spending our taxmoney, just one example:
Every year over 42K people lose their lives in traffic accidents in the US. That's what, 16 times the number of deaths in 911? And it happens every year. Imagine how many lives would be saved if 100 billion per year was plowed into traffic safety (such as pedestrian walks over or under dangerous intersections, air bags that don't kill toddlers, etc.).
Just my 0.02.
The issue here, as explained in the article, is trademark ("TM") infringement. To get TM infringement, one element is that there must be use in commerce. Spyware of this sort operates, as I understand, by having a list of keywords against which, for example, user queries can be compared. In WhenU's case, it had a list which included the TMs of it's competitors (it's clients' competitors, actually).
One court, in N.Y., granted an injunction holding that WhenU used it's competitor's TMs in commerce in two ways - one, in the file against which it compared keywords and, second, in that WhenU's window popped up when the competitor's webpage did (the court thought WhenU played off of the competitor, I think). Personally, I don't get the court's second point at all. WhenU did nothing to get any competitor's website to come up. An analogy might be if a business erected a sign near it's competitor's location - I am not familiar with any caselaw on this point, but I would imagine it wouldn't be TM infringement.
Another court, in Virginia, found the opposite, that inclusion of the TM in the keyword file was not "use in commerce".
A third jurisdiction, Michigan, sided with Vir. in the third WhenU case.
But this case is in Maine, so I guess it could go either way.
I guess some people, many people, apparently think yes.
In evaluating such systems, you also have to figure in the bad consequences of the system. Like what about cops abusing the system such as by rigging the system to frame somebody?
It's happening already, in a way, with the red light cameras. Alot of people who don't do the violations are likely paying when they don't have to. I did, figuring if you spent the time in court you'd have to divulge who did drive and they'd go after that person, which in my case would've meant that I paid anyway. Fortunately, that's not the case, but you do have to go to court and contest it - maybe not worth it for some people even with the points if there are any.
With your teenager driving law, what about if a teenager has to walk because he can't ride with a friend due to the passenger law and he ends up getting hit? Something like that's bound to happen sooner or later. (I'm from D.C. and it still sticks in my mind about that guy who visited for some reason and was hit on the street - he lost an arm because of it.)
So, on the one side, you have 4 deaths due to loud music. Assuming these are the only deaths due to more than one passenger being in the car (might not be the case), you'd have to amortise the 4 deaths over the total time cars have been driven by teens in your city - likely a very low rate of death per year (let's say 60 years of driving, 4 deaths = 0.067 deaths per year due to overcrowding).
On the other side goes any injuries resulting from kids having to walk (hopefully very low, but as the recent accident in D.C. shows, it happens), plus all the lost time, missed appointments (kids will be late, especially if they have to walk), and simple loss of the ability for kids to do things if they don't have rides.
Not saying your teenager laws are wrong, but the city's characterization that it saves 4 lives per year with no mentioned downside doesn't tell the whole truth.
Not the same thing, but reminds me of what happened locally due to 911. Lots of metro riders walk into the Pentagon City mall through the parking garage entrance. After 911, they had security there to prevent this for a week or so (why I don't know - driving in was ok, walking not. What, they thought walkers could conceal bombs?). The thing was, with the construction at the time, the only way to walk around was to walk a few hundered feet facing ongoing rush hour traffic with no shoulder space. I almost wished an accident happened so that the mall would get sued - would've served them right.
I never heard about this. Can you provide any cites?
For a spectacled intellectual, I always thought he made a pretty good idol to mimic in the woman-seduction arena. What with his multiple kids, some illegitimate and all ...
Sure they do, in a manner of speaking.
Hmm. The Megway is either some kind of postcard, a reasonably cute girl, or something resembling a Segway, but not quite.
Looks like the reasonably cute girl wasn't so far off ...
When they are using taxpayer money to do the tests, I don't see why the results (1) can't be disclosed and (2) shouldn't be disclosed (we paid for it!).