I once had a sizeable amount taken from my account by the son of a roommate. I could get it back but in exchange I had to agree to testify for the bank if they chose to bring suit.
Recently, my girlfriend noticed money was taken from her account. She doesn't know who or how the information was stolen. The bank knew where and when, of course. The bank refunded the amount without trouble.
Comprise does not mean "compose"; it means "consist of". For example, a dozen comprises twelve eggs. Saying that something is "comprised of" something else makes no sense.
Don't tell the patent people.
In patents, "comprising" means "includes". It is open-ended, meaning that other elements can be added even though not listed, and the description will still fit.
example: a chair comprising three legs and a seat. A chair having a back or four legs or both satisfies this definition and would infringe such a patent claim.
"consisting of", however, basically means "is made of". It is close-ended, meaning that other elements cannot be added without going outside of the description.
example: a chair consisting of three legs and a seat. A chair with four legs or a back does not meet this definition and thus would not infringe such a patent claim.
Your mention of a ditch had me thinking for a second. I remember it now - for anti-tank use.
I lived in West Berlin for over a year oh so long ago. I used to make kindof a study of the wall. Even brought back a piece of it, long before it came down and was sold in pieces in the US like pet rocks. (taking the piece home made kindof a funny story. I was taken off the subway by plainclothes policemen who thought I was going to use it to vandalize something. I switched to English and told them I was an American tourist who was bringing home a souvenir, so they let me go, rock and all)
From what I remember, there was "the wall" - that part that is famous in pictures, with the graffiti and all. Incidently, it was covered/topped with what looked like a continuous cylinder maybe 2 or 3 feet in diameter along the top. I imagine that would have been very hard to get past without special equipment. Behind the wall was the no man's land with a small access road for patrols and the antitank ditch in it. Behind that was a somewhat shorter inner wall as well.
Of course, "the wall" was different in different places. In some places it was partly made up of buildings. Additionally, the western subway went under parts of East Berlin. You could sometimes see guards in the stations in the Eastern part.
It was an interesting study in security. As the wall changed in form due to the changing geography, infrastructure, and so forth, you could see how one who wanted out would attempt to choose the weakest link. One guy built a flat car and drove under the checkpoint gates. Another tightrope walked over the wall (IIRC). And so forth.
Son, if you can't distinguish between American soldiers defending their country and Nazi members of the SS invading Germany's neighbors, if you can't tell the difference between decent soldiers and war criminals, then no amount of argument on my part is going to make you see the light.
Please. While I expect that we are comporting ourselves pretty well in Iraq (we have to, what with the world watching), we haven't always done so. My Lai comes to mind, for one.
And we are not there in Iraq to defend America, no matter what the official propaganda is. We bombed Iraq to hell in the first Gulf war. They had no WMD, or so it seems. Even if they had some, how could they have really threatened the US? Israel, sure, but not the US. Had they managed to get one to the US, we would've rolled over them in nothing flat (as we did), but at least then there would have been a valid reason. As it is, it seems pretty convincing it was simply a reason to convert taxpayer money to Haliburton, et al.'s income.
I'm getting off topic here, but I'm sorry, I'm sick of the government meddling in the affairs of other countries (WIPO, TRIPS, Iraq, et al.) in ways that get many foreigners very upset but it is ok because we say so in our paternalistic way. It is all about the money - ours. Yet we can't take care of our own. For example, even on subfreezing days, you can find homeless on the street within two blocks of the white house.
Based on a referernce therein...
Arlington County, VA, Code section 17-13(c) Identification.
It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification
I was once carded at Rocklands (there to get carryout), the bouncer said the law required I carry an id. Always wanted to do research on that but was too lazy.
So I'm allowed to ask anyone I encounter for their ID to verify that they aren't dangerous to me if they act "hinky"?
Of course you are allowed to ask this. That doesn't mean anyone has to comply. Just don't impersonate a police officer when you ask, now that'd be illegal.
A police officer is able to legally ask anything that an ordinary citizen can ask. The thing I don't like is that because police officers have a visual authority and act and use a voice which conveys that they have the authority to ask what they ask, they get alot of people to comply with their requests to the detriment of the people when the police don't have the legal authority to enforce compliance.
The repeat offenders, the dangerous criminals, are not the ones likely to get caught like this. The ones who get caught are likely the younger ones, the high schoolers out drinking and such.
Is it possible legally to make such people join this case? I mean let's say 100 people who received a letter from RIAA and don't want to pay join under one banner to countersue?
In short, you're thinking of a class action suit. I'm not sure if this lady's suit can be changed into one, but it's probably possible somehow. Also, courts can consolidate multiple suits when the issues are similar, although this usually happens on appeal. Thus, if this lady's suit couldn't be expanded to a class action suit, a class action could be separately filed and this lady's might get joined to it.
With class action suits, all potential plaintiffs are not required to join. Usually, once a suit is filed, there is a mechanism whereby potential members can opt out. They might refuse to join if they disagree with the claims or remedies sought, for example.
If I can legally transfer the number to someone else for free why can't I ask them to pay me to do it?
This reminds me of the legal 'problem' of blackmail which I read up on recently. Blackmail is generally (1) asking someone for money so that you (2) won't disclose certain information. Taken alone, both parts of the transaction are legal, but, put together, they are illegal. Apparently, this is something that legal scholars wrestle with from time to time to try and make sense of it within the greater legal framework of US jurisprudence.
Your analogy of sex for sale is on point. In both the sale of sex and the sale of a telephone number, the parties are freely and willingly exchanging things of value.
In the blackmail problem, a first party gets money in exchange for not doing something to hurt a second party. In this case, the nondisclosure of information is presumably not of any value except to the second party.
As I'm sure others have said, the transferability of phone numbers lies in the rights of the number holder. If the company allows them to transfer the number to another, well, then they should be able to do it by sale. If the company reserves this right, however, then the holder can't do it whether for free or for money.
I forgot to post that Columbia has a website where you can compare Harrison's song My Sweet Lord with the 'original' Ronald Mack song He's So Fine and judge for yourself if Harrison infringed on Mack - it is here.
I think you were kindof being funny, but it can happen. One famous case is where Harrison (from the Beatles) was found to have infringed subconsciously a song he had heard 7? years earlier. From the court case (Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177, D.C.N.Y. 1976):
What happened? I conclude that the composer, [FN12] in seeking musical materials to clothe his thoughts, was working with various possibilities. As he tried this possibility and that, there came to the surface of his mind a particular combination that pleased him as being one he felt would be appealing to a prospective listener; in other words, that this combination of sounds would work. Why? Because his subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his conscious mind did not remember. Having arrived at this pleasing combination of sounds, the recording was made, the lead sheet prepared for copyright and the song became an enormous success. Did Harrison deliberately use the music of He's So Fine? I do not believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He's So Fine with different words, [FN13] and Harrison had access to He's So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 1936); Northern Music Corp. v. Pacemaker Music Co., Inc., 147 U.S.P.Q. 358, 359 (S.D.N.Y.1965).
When I worked in a record retail store, we had a policy posted above the cashier that all sales were final. Well, the thing was, if a customer came in and got mad at the counter and wouldn't leave, the manager would refund their money to get them to go out.
I always felt this was shitty - aggressive, loud, selfish people got their money back while polite, friendly, non-confrontiational people didn't. I always thought everyone should be treated the same.
On the other hand, if we wanted to reward some people and not others, why then I felt it should be the other way around - tell the assholes to get lost - call security if necessary - and give money back to people who were polite and nice about it. Geez, it might even begin to instill some politeness in some people.
Then again, I've benefitted from this. At a local art store, they have a policy to give discounts to students. One day, the cashier asked someone in front of me if they were a student, when it came to my turn, I wasn't asked and forgot to provide my student card. When I remembered, just after having paid, the cashier refused. When I asked her to phone the manager, she did so and then turned to me with a very smug look and said she couldn't do it. I left, but was so angry (at her smugness at this point), I went back in and demanded to have the manager to tell me to my face that I didn't deserve the discount. This time I got it.
I guess it is just a case of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil". It is probably not good to encourage this, though.
Actually, the 9th Circuit has some rather astute judges. One is Alex Kozinski - an unofficial website of him is here - it lists some of his writings. One is Real nerds don't buy computers. They make them. Apparently, he is also a gaming reviewer.
I'd be fine with a lack of privacy, because everyone would be under equal scrutiny.
You really think politicians and others of power would get treated the same way?
Would never happen, I think. The control of data collection would have to be in the hands of an entity (a) not under the control of the government, politicians, or police but (b) subject to regulation which the people, or at least attorney generals, can enforce.
It is the same problem with security cameras. Alot of/.ers say they are ok so long as everyone is treated equally. But, for everyone to be treated equally, wouldn't the people have to have equal access to the tapes?
I agree in principle with you that if everyone is treated equally, it should be ok. I do have a caveat, though (and this is something that alot of/.ers will probably have first hand experience with, as IT personnel). As more and more data is aggregated about people, it will be easier for those in power to abuse others. I've seen people at work get fired for viewing pornography when I know the bosses did it at work as well. The inequity in access to the company records in that case means the employee has a tough battle to fight such abuse. As privacy declines, these abuses will become easier. It is nothing new, just easier.
So, the IRS i meany theired to searcement, and cour pritightened...
WTF? I guess I'm not the only one who occasionally gets a bad connection - you know, the kind where you think you've deleted something but it really isn't or you type in something but it doens't show so you type it in again. Or something.
I often have a big beef with the textbook situation. Especially when carrying them to class (it was ok in evening school when a class required 1 or two books as they fit well in a backpack. Since I transferred to daytime, it's a royal pain, I need two bags, always have problems getting on and off the subway, etc.)
I am in law school, and I can say that I find it very upsetting to pay $80 or more for a text when I usually find the text at least partly unsatifactory. For me, a text should serve several purposes: (1) to teach the course and (2) to serve as a reference for later (at work). Law books, in my opinion, fail both of these tests.
For those not in law (in the US), the basics of law (in most fields) is referred to as the "black letter law". Black letter law is basically the common standard/state of the law holding over the majority of the jurisictions of the US. Generally, courses are designed to teach the black letter law, caselaw which interprets it, and the major exceptions that have developed. The thing with law texts is that they almost never point out the black letter law in a straight forward manner. For example, with contract law, the basics are that a contract is formed when there is an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. Thus, a text will likely have a section entitled "offer", but instead of setting forth the black letter of what constitutes an offer, the text might immeadiately present a case or more which highlights what an offer is.
I'm guessing that the idea is that making the students read the cases to get the law teaches them how to determine the law for themselves. The funny thing is, there is a big business for "study guides" which are keyed to law texts and summarize things and set forth what is being taught as well as "nutshells" which set forth the black letter law. Students also trade "outlines" which are summaries of courses - you can even find these online. Since students already have access to pre-digested versions of the texts and compilations of what the law is, shouldn't the black letter be included in a text to improve it's use as a reference/teaching instrument?
For me, a good law text should, for each topic, include (1) the black letter law (including important jurisdictional notes such as major exceptions) along with any plain language explanations and introduction which is needed, (2) caselaw which supports, expands, or provides examples on the black letter law, (3) caselaw exemplifying the major/important exceptions, and then (4) the notes and questions that the texts always have. Thus, in a crunch (whether during the school year or later, in work) when you need to know the law on something, you can find it (or at least the law as of the date of the text) rather quickly.
With all the outlining law students do already, I think we should create open license texts in the open source sense for various areas of law. The case decisions are free (the Fed. Gov. doesn't get copyright in them), so there shouldn't be any impediment, and they would, when properly done, be a great improvement over current texts. Anyone interested?
Good quote. Pretty much sums the situation up since 9/11.
It doesn't appear the purpose of 9/11 was to specifically overthrow consitutional government. Bush and Congress are the ones behind that. 9/11 in my view was probably a combination of retailiation against harms (real or imagined) inflicted by the US on the Middle East and Islam in general and an attempt to actually disrupt some financial machinations. I wonder if they even imagined the US would retaliate back so harshly?
The court probably got most of it's reasoning from Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson Medical, Education and Research Foundation (2002) where the Fed. Circuit held that latches applied. For those that don't know, all patent appeals go through the Fed. Circuit - it was created expressly to bring consistancy to the patent litigation field.
I'd imagine that many Lemelson suits will go this way from now on, given the Fed. Circuit precedence. Actually, they have to if the same issues apply.
Lemelson built his empire on what are called submarine patents - applications which are prosecuted for many many years before issuing. Once issued, the owner then goes after the big companies who have dominated the market in the meantime. That's how he made his billions.
I used to work in the patent office. My supervisor once brought in a Lemelson application he was working on - it's original filing date was 35 years earlier. From what he said, the original application was for a memory chip, but over the years Lemelson added bits of information here and there, and by the time my supervisor got the case, it was for a microprocessor of some kind. Basically, he played the patent system pretty close to the edge, but pretty much legally, I guess.
For those who find this shocking - the current patent system measures length of patent term from the date of application, so submarine patents of the extreme nature of Lemelson's are pretty much not possible any more (except if the application is classified - a few years ago a patent came out which had been classified some 67? years previously IIRC).
Reminds me of a case from England. A guy sued MCI (I think) for calling his house to offer adding a neighbor to their circle of freinds list. The wife got this phone call. Seems a large number of calls had been placed to a certain neighbor when the wife was not around. As the wife figured out, this was a previously-unknown-to-her girlfriend of the husband's.
all the organs in which infectious prions occur were removed at slaughter and did not enter the food supply. Muscle meat is not a source of infectious prions....None of this material left the control of the companies and entered commercial distribution.
I hate this quote. I heard something similar on an interview with a government representative discussing the matter after the contamination was found.
The problem is, I recently read Fast Food Nation. That book discusses slaughterhouse conditions. It has descriptions of how intestines and other organs can get burst by cutting instruments and how organ matter can get splat on other carcasses in the vacinity. With all the self-regulation permitted under the law today, I don't trust the slaughterhouses to (a) even know if the contaminated carcass had it's organs improperly cut/splattered and (b) to report this if they did know.
Wise men make proverbs, but fools repeat them. (Samuel Palmer)
[One of my first programming tasks so long ago was to write a routine to randomly print one of 5 phrases. I went kindof off the wall, checked out a few library books on famous quotes and proverbs, and selected a few dozen for my submission. Trying to be cute, I guess, I included the quote of above. When t the assignment came back, that quote was circled.]
... "If you don't do anything wrong," they say, "you have nothing to fear from these things."
A quote:
"Of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all other rights would lose half their value." [bold added] [Justice Field in In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 F. 241, 250 (N.D. Cal. 1887).]
I think this is a qood reply to those citizens willing to shed their civil rights since they claim never to do anything wrong.
This quote was later quoted in a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Harlan in Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 489 (1894).
Justice Harlan continued "The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security . . . they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes [sic] of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." [Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 489 (1894).]
Slashdot Mirror
Recently, my girlfriend noticed money was taken from her account. She doesn't know who or how the information was stolen. The bank knew where and when, of course. The bank refunded the amount without trouble.
Don't tell the patent people.
In patents, "comprising" means "includes". It is open-ended, meaning that other elements can be added even though not listed, and the description will still fit.
example: a chair comprising three legs and a seat. A chair having a back or four legs or both satisfies this definition and would infringe such a patent claim.
"consisting of", however, basically means "is made of". It is close-ended, meaning that other elements cannot be added without going outside of the description.
example: a chair consisting of three legs and a seat. A chair with four legs or a back does not meet this definition and thus would not infringe such a patent claim.
for further info, see the USPTO discussion here.
I lived in West Berlin for over a year oh so long ago. I used to make kindof a study of the wall. Even brought back a piece of it, long before it came down and was sold in pieces in the US like pet rocks. (taking the piece home made kindof a funny story. I was taken off the subway by plainclothes policemen who thought I was going to use it to vandalize something. I switched to English and told them I was an American tourist who was bringing home a souvenir, so they let me go, rock and all)
From what I remember, there was "the wall" - that part that is famous in pictures, with the graffiti and all. Incidently, it was covered/topped with what looked like a continuous cylinder maybe 2 or 3 feet in diameter along the top. I imagine that would have been very hard to get past without special equipment. Behind the wall was the no man's land with a small access road for patrols and the antitank ditch in it. Behind that was a somewhat shorter inner wall as well.
Of course, "the wall" was different in different places. In some places it was partly made up of buildings. Additionally, the western subway went under parts of East Berlin. You could sometimes see guards in the stations in the Eastern part.
It was an interesting study in security. As the wall changed in form due to the changing geography, infrastructure, and so forth, you could see how one who wanted out would attempt to choose the weakest link. One guy built a flat car and drove under the checkpoint gates. Another tightrope walked over the wall (IIRC). And so forth.
Please. While I expect that we are comporting ourselves pretty well in Iraq (we have to, what with the world watching), we haven't always done so. My Lai comes to mind, for one.
And we are not there in Iraq to defend America, no matter what the official propaganda is. We bombed Iraq to hell in the first Gulf war. They had no WMD, or so it seems. Even if they had some, how could they have really threatened the US? Israel, sure, but not the US. Had they managed to get one to the US, we would've rolled over them in nothing flat (as we did), but at least then there would have been a valid reason. As it is, it seems pretty convincing it was simply a reason to convert taxpayer money to Haliburton, et al.'s income.
I'm getting off topic here, but I'm sorry, I'm sick of the government meddling in the affairs of other countries (WIPO, TRIPS, Iraq, et al.) in ways that get many foreigners very upset but it is ok because we say so in our paternalistic way. It is all about the money - ours. Yet we can't take care of our own. For example, even on subfreezing days, you can find homeless on the street within two blocks of the white house.
Based on a referernce therein ...
Arlington County, VA, Code section 17-13(c) Identification.
It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification
I was once carded at Rocklands (there to get carryout), the bouncer said the law required I carry an id. Always wanted to do research on that but was too lazy.
Of course you are allowed to ask this. That doesn't mean anyone has to comply. Just don't impersonate a police officer when you ask, now that'd be illegal.
A police officer is able to legally ask anything that an ordinary citizen can ask. The thing I don't like is that because police officers have a visual authority and act and use a voice which conveys that they have the authority to ask what they ask, they get alot of people to comply with their requests to the detriment of the people when the police don't have the legal authority to enforce compliance.
The repeat offenders, the dangerous criminals, are not the ones likely to get caught like this. The ones who get caught are likely the younger ones, the high schoolers out drinking and such.
In short, you're thinking of a class action suit. I'm not sure if this lady's suit can be changed into one, but it's probably possible somehow. Also, courts can consolidate multiple suits when the issues are similar, although this usually happens on appeal. Thus, if this lady's suit couldn't be expanded to a class action suit, a class action could be separately filed and this lady's might get joined to it.
With class action suits, all potential plaintiffs are not required to join. Usually, once a suit is filed, there is a mechanism whereby potential members can opt out. They might refuse to join if they disagree with the claims or remedies sought, for example.
Automated voice: For automated stock prices, please state the company name.
Homer: Animotion.
Automated voice: Animotion. Up 1 1/2.
Homer: Yahoo!
Automated voice: Yahoo. Up 6 1/4.
Homer: Huh? What is this crap?
Automated voice: Fox Brodcasting. Down 8.
This reminds me of the legal 'problem' of blackmail which I read up on recently. Blackmail is generally (1) asking someone for money so that you (2) won't disclose certain information. Taken alone, both parts of the transaction are legal, but, put together, they are illegal. Apparently, this is something that legal scholars wrestle with from time to time to try and make sense of it within the greater legal framework of US jurisprudence.
Your analogy of sex for sale is on point. In both the sale of sex and the sale of a telephone number, the parties are freely and willingly exchanging things of value. In the blackmail problem, a first party gets money in exchange for not doing something to hurt a second party. In this case, the nondisclosure of information is presumably not of any value except to the second party.
As I'm sure others have said, the transferability of phone numbers lies in the rights of the number holder. If the company allows them to transfer the number to another, well, then they should be able to do it by sale. If the company reserves this right, however, then the holder can't do it whether for free or for money.
I forgot to post that Columbia has a website where you can compare Harrison's song My Sweet Lord with the 'original' Ronald Mack song He's So Fine and judge for yourself if Harrison infringed on Mack - it is here.
When I worked in a record retail store, we had a policy posted above the cashier that all sales were final. Well, the thing was, if a customer came in and got mad at the counter and wouldn't leave, the manager would refund their money to get them to go out.
I always felt this was shitty - aggressive, loud, selfish people got their money back while polite, friendly, non-confrontiational people didn't. I always thought everyone should be treated the same.
On the other hand, if we wanted to reward some people and not others, why then I felt it should be the other way around - tell the assholes to get lost - call security if necessary - and give money back to people who were polite and nice about it. Geez, it might even begin to instill some politeness in some people.
Then again, I've benefitted from this. At a local art store, they have a policy to give discounts to students. One day, the cashier asked someone in front of me if they were a student, when it came to my turn, I wasn't asked and forgot to provide my student card. When I remembered, just after having paid, the cashier refused. When I asked her to phone the manager, she did so and then turned to me with a very smug look and said she couldn't do it. I left, but was so angry (at her smugness at this point), I went back in and demanded to have the manager to tell me to my face that I didn't deserve the discount. This time I got it.
I guess it is just a case of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil". It is probably not good to encourage this, though.
Actually, the 9th Circuit has some rather astute judges. One is Alex Kozinski - an unofficial website of him is here - it lists some of his writings. One is Real nerds don't buy computers. They make them. Apparently, he is also a gaming reviewer.
You really think politicians and others of power would get treated the same way?
Would never happen, I think. The control of data collection would have to be in the hands of an entity (a) not under the control of the government, politicians, or police but (b) subject to regulation which the people, or at least attorney generals, can enforce.
It is the same problem with security cameras. Alot of /.ers say they are ok so long as everyone is treated equally. But, for everyone to be treated equally, wouldn't the people have to have equal access to the tapes?
I agree in principle with you that if everyone is treated equally, it should be ok. I do have a caveat, though (and this is something that alot of /.ers will probably have first hand experience with, as IT personnel). As more and more data is aggregated about people, it will be easier for those in power to abuse others. I've seen people at work get fired for viewing pornography when I know the bosses did it at work as well. The inequity in access to the company records in that case means the employee has a tough battle to fight such abuse. As privacy declines, these abuses will become easier. It is nothing new, just easier.
Observingsurveillance.org
The Surveillance Camera Players
WTF? I guess I'm not the only one who occasionally gets a bad connection - you know, the kind where you think you've deleted something but it really isn't or you type in something but it doens't show so you type it in again. Or something.
Makes it kinda hard to follow.
Oh sure ... and how much do you want to bet that it doens't have a back door in it?
I am in law school, and I can say that I find it very upsetting to pay $80 or more for a text when I usually find the text at least partly unsatifactory. For me, a text should serve several purposes: (1) to teach the course and (2) to serve as a reference for later (at work). Law books, in my opinion, fail both of these tests.
For those not in law (in the US), the basics of law (in most fields) is referred to as the "black letter law". Black letter law is basically the common standard/state of the law holding over the majority of the jurisictions of the US. Generally, courses are designed to teach the black letter law, caselaw which interprets it, and the major exceptions that have developed. The thing with law texts is that they almost never point out the black letter law in a straight forward manner. For example, with contract law, the basics are that a contract is formed when there is an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. Thus, a text will likely have a section entitled "offer", but instead of setting forth the black letter of what constitutes an offer, the text might immeadiately present a case or more which highlights what an offer is.
I'm guessing that the idea is that making the students read the cases to get the law teaches them how to determine the law for themselves. The funny thing is, there is a big business for "study guides" which are keyed to law texts and summarize things and set forth what is being taught as well as "nutshells" which set forth the black letter law. Students also trade "outlines" which are summaries of courses - you can even find these online. Since students already have access to pre-digested versions of the texts and compilations of what the law is, shouldn't the black letter be included in a text to improve it's use as a reference/teaching instrument?
For me, a good law text should, for each topic, include (1) the black letter law (including important jurisdictional notes such as major exceptions) along with any plain language explanations and introduction which is needed, (2) caselaw which supports, expands, or provides examples on the black letter law, (3) caselaw exemplifying the major/important exceptions, and then (4) the notes and questions that the texts always have. Thus, in a crunch (whether during the school year or later, in work) when you need to know the law on something, you can find it (or at least the law as of the date of the text) rather quickly.
With all the outlining law students do already, I think we should create open license texts in the open source sense for various areas of law. The case decisions are free (the Fed. Gov. doesn't get copyright in them), so there shouldn't be any impediment, and they would, when properly done, be a great improvement over current texts. Anyone interested?
It doesn't appear the purpose of 9/11 was to specifically overthrow consitutional government. Bush and Congress are the ones behind that. 9/11 in my view was probably a combination of retailiation against harms (real or imagined) inflicted by the US on the Middle East and Islam in general and an attempt to actually disrupt some financial machinations. I wonder if they even imagined the US would retaliate back so harshly?
Lemelson built his empire on what are called submarine patents - applications which are prosecuted for many many years before issuing. Once issued, the owner then goes after the big companies who have dominated the market in the meantime. That's how he made his billions.
I used to work in the patent office. My supervisor once brought in a Lemelson application he was working on - it's original filing date was 35 years earlier. From what he said, the original application was for a memory chip, but over the years Lemelson added bits of information here and there, and by the time my supervisor got the case, it was for a microprocessor of some kind. Basically, he played the patent system pretty close to the edge, but pretty much legally, I guess.
For those who find this shocking - the current patent system measures length of patent term from the date of application, so submarine patents of the extreme nature of Lemelson's are pretty much not possible any more (except if the application is classified - a few years ago a patent came out which had been classified some 67? years previously IIRC).
As I recall, the guy lost the suit.
I hate this quote. I heard something similar on an interview with a government representative discussing the matter after the contamination was found.
The problem is, I recently read Fast Food Nation. That book discusses slaughterhouse conditions. It has descriptions of how intestines and other organs can get burst by cutting instruments and how organ matter can get splat on other carcasses in the vacinity. With all the self-regulation permitted under the law today, I don't trust the slaughterhouses to (a) even know if the contaminated carcass had it's organs improperly cut/splattered and (b) to report this if they did know.
Regarding the new concept of delivering Internet commercials discussed yesterday here on /., I would say we need a similar rule for the Internet.
[One of my first programming tasks so long ago was to write a routine to randomly print one of 5 phrases. I went kindof off the wall, checked out a few library books on famous quotes and proverbs, and selected a few dozen for my submission. Trying to be cute, I guess, I included the quote of above. When t the assignment came back, that quote was circled.]
A quote:
"Of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all other rights would lose half their value." [bold added] [Justice Field in In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 F. 241, 250 (N.D. Cal. 1887).]
I think this is a qood reply to those citizens willing to shed their civil rights since they claim never to do anything wrong.
This quote was later quoted in a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Harlan in Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 489 (1894).
Justice Harlan continued "The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security . . . they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes [sic] of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." [Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 489 (1894).]