Isn't this the point of the eGPU strategy? To offload real computational work onto a dedicated device that is properly chassied for the job?
The real question might be why spend the money on an unlocked i9 instead of an eGPU.
This... I've got a 2015 MBP, but I'm running 3 monitors off a GTX 1060 in an external case. At this rate, I'm thinking my next machine should be the lightest, smallest, longest battery life laptop out there for traveling purposes, with a pair of eGPUs at my home and office.
There are two cards. Yellow is for "minor" infractions, compared to "red". It doesn't matter what the minor infraction is, it's a yellow. Time wasting, tripping, grabbing a jersey, arguing with the ref, etc. Red cards are for either major infractions (deliberate attempts to injure, for example), or as a result of getting two yellow cards. You can see the difference -- if the ref immediately shows a red it's a major infraction. If he first shows yellow, then red, it's from getting two yellows.
Ok thank you!!
Question....if a person gets 2 red cards are they tossed out of the game at that point?
Only a single red card = tossed out of the game. Two yellows = one red = tossed. No way to get two reds, unless the player charges back in from the sidelines after getting tossed.;)
And Comey basically threw the election to Trump by reopening the Clinton investigation in late October.
Whether or not it had a significant effect on undecided voters or voter turnout, consider what would have happened if he didn't reopen the investigation: he had just uncovered a huge number of allegedly "missing" Clinton emails, some of which included classified material, on the laptop of a guy about to be indicted for transmitting Weiner pictures to minors. It couldn't be kept hush-hush, since it was going to be in a publicly-available federal indictment of a major public figure that the media was following. If he tried to sit on it until after the election, then all of the "Obama officials aiding Clinton pedophile-ring" rumors would blow up even more.
Basically, his hands were tied. It was going to become public, and anything other than immediate release and re-opening the investigation would make it look even more like something shady was going on. This was his best attempt to get it back out of the news cycle by election day.
With lotto and scratchers, most of the tickets are worthless. They don't enhance your life...
They are a form of entertainment. For the price of a ticket you rent a fantasy about what you would do with the money if you were to win, which indeed has some known chance of actually happening. It is fantasy that lasts for a few days (or until you scratch the ticket).
You can also fantasize for free and there's only a marginally smaller chance of your fantasy coming true.
Why this form of entertainment is "worthless" compared to playing an on-line game is unclear to me. Indeed, you can indulge in the lottery fantasy while doing other useful things. Not so the on-line game.
Other useful things like... watching TV or reading a book or playing a video game for entertainment? Oh, wait. The online game already has an entertainment purpose.
[If] it really is novel and nothing like it has been patented before it will be granted.
If you work for a large company, use the phrase, "with a computer," and can pay the application fees, it will be granted.
Why is this comment modded down as "funny"? There is so much truth in this statement. It's so funny that it makes me want to cry. This comment should be modded up, and the moderator should be modded down.
Because it's not true? Google Patents provides free and fast searching of issued patents. Go find one that was granted just because it says "with a computer".
It's definitely true. Of course, no one actually writes those exact words into the title.
So, definitely not true then? Got it.
One has to give the patent examiner a little credit for finding prior art, so the ideas that are simply reapplied to a computer, a phone, a GPU, etc. are written such that the idea sounds novel.
If something is written such that the idea sounds novel, maybe it's, you know, novel?
I should point out that you've backed away from the "use the phrase 'on a computer' and it'll be granted" claim to "write something that achieves a known result in a novel way on a device that couldn't previously do it and your patent will be granted," and I don't see why that's a bad result.
1. Creating a general algorithm that can be applied to many different problems - No protection since math is neither patentable nor copyrightable.
2. Apply the algorithm to a specific problem - Patentable. 25 years of protection.
3. Writing a shitty almost off-topic post on slashdot in a thread about the algorithm - Copyright. Life + 70 years!
So, the less important the creative work is to society is, the more protection it gets.
Only 20 years for patents, not 25. But yes, copyright term is significantly longer, but it's much narrower. Copyright only protects that specific item. So if you copy-paste someone's source code, you violate their copyright. If you reverse engineer it and rewrite it, then you don't, but you may violate their patent. In fact, if you independently come up with the same code, even if it's 100% identical down to variable names, you don't violate their copyright because you haven't actually "copied" anything, but you would violate their patent.
That is complete bullshit. One of patent's requirement is, it CAN'T BE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. You spill the beans before you file for the patent, invalid. Someone has published the same idea before you, INVALID.
The problem is, that USPTO by default grants patents, the extensive checks are expensive and they do not bother anymore - let the courts sort it out.
[If] it really is novel and nothing like it has been patented before it will be granted.
If you work for a large company, use the phrase, "with a computer," and can pay the application fees, it will be granted.
Why is this comment modded down as "funny"? There is so much truth in this statement. It's so funny that it makes me want to cry. This comment should be modded up, and the moderator should be modded down.
Because it's not true? Google Patents provides free and fast searching of issued patents. Go find one that was granted just because it says "with a computer".
The story is about an issue that is completely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether the "RND" function is ideally random in a mathematical sense. It only matters whether the "random" number generated is independent of the identities of the people applying to be admitted.
It isn't even that. Just because the distribution of random numbers isn't random it doesn't mean the sort order based on that isn't random. For example, suppose my random number generator only put out numbers divisible by 1/(2^16) which is what a finite precision binary based system is going to do. This distribution isn't random because it's zero density at many possible floating point values. Yet the sort order might be perfectly random.
Even further, it appears that the flaw with Excel's PRNG is that, if you know the seed, then all of the resulting numbers are predictable. So, for example, if you can duplicate the starting seed, then it's trivial to generate the exact same list of 100,000 random numbers for their sort function. According to a linked article within TFA:
"The generator is run in user mode rather than in kernel mode, and therefore it is easy to access its state even without administrator privileges. The initial values of part of the state of the generator are not set explicitly, but rather are defined by whatever values are present on the stack when the generator is called.
The cryptographers discovered that the state of the generator is refreshed with system generated entropy only after generating 128KB of output for the process running it. "The result of combining this observation with our attack is that learning a single state may reveal 128KB of the past and future output of the generator," they explain.
But that's irrelevant to this process. They're not using the same numbers generated previously. They're not providing their starting values at the beginning of the year so that people can determine the best days to submit their application. Once the seed is known, the output is predictable, but if the seed is unknown, then the output is effectively random. And since the seed is generated at 'sort' time, after the records have been entered, there's no way to know what placement is useful in advance.
You guys are still paying for incoming calls, right? Here in Europe everyone picks up their phone, all the time, always. If we don't want to be called by a certain number we just add it to the blocking list.
Most spam calls here spoof their numbers, sometimes even appearing with the same area code and exchange as your own number and similar to those of your neighbors, so you end up having to manually block thousands or tens of thousands of numbers.
Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.
Ah, but don't fall into the "whatever the police do must have been reasonable" trap either. As you note, the police rolled up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages. When the door is opened and someone steps out, isn't it significantly more likely that it's one of the hostages? I mean, that's kinda the whole point of hostage situations.
Furthermore, from the video that was leaked, the cops were all behind cover. What was the danger that justified the use of deadly force? It appears that the only person who was actually in danger was the victim, and disregarding the fact that that danger was from the cops, at most, they should have assumed that the danger was the alleged hostage taker behind him.
Sure, the media should cover these crashes. They're news, after all.
But, they should be held responsible for defamation when they cover the story in a misleading, reputation-damaging way. For example, after the recent crash in Florida that resulted in two deaths, there were lots of articles with headlines like "Autopilot-equipped Tesla Crashes, Kills 2" or "Fatal Crash in Florida Involving Tesla with Autopilot," and the articles would start off with "A Tesla Model S equipped with Autopilot was involved in a fatal crash..." But when you get to the very end of the article, there'd be a throwaway sentence about how autopilot was not in use at the time. That's textbook yellow journalism.
Now, of course, under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, they can't be held liable for defamation, because it's near impossible to prove actual malice (though how much do you want to bet someone at those papers shorts Tesla before publishing the article?). But that's yet another reason that decision should be reined in.
A quick search for Telsa deaths suggests that ALL the fatalities (of people in Teslas) have been when autopilot was running.
You need to redo that search. There was the crash in Florida just a couple weeks ago that resulted in fatalities and did not have autopilot running - instead, it was the entirely predictable result of 3 teenagers driving at 60 mph around a turn known as "deadman's curve".
OTOH if I want to have a bit of libtard fun I like to ask my right wing friends/acquaintances if healthcare is a right or not try to make them answer yes or no. After 5-10 minutes of speeches and heming and hawing they'll either say 'no' or admit we ought to have a national healthcare system.
While I do believe we should have a national healthcare system because it makes economic sense, healthcare cannot possibly be considered a right: what if people decided being a doctor sucks and they didn't want to be doctors anymore? If healthcare is a right, then the government should force them to go into the profession and provide service... but that would violate the 13th amendment's ban on slavery. And the right of people to not be forced to provide healthcare must trump any alleged right to receive healthcare.
And that is where you are 100% fucking wrong. Re-read the post you replied to. The premise was made that when you purchase goods it's no legally binding until money has changed hands. You said it's not true. You are wrong about this. 100% There are 3 basic tenants to forming a binding contract, offer, acceptance, and consideration. Without the last there is no binding contract.
Yes, Sparky, but there's no requirement that said consideration must change hands at that time. A valid contract can include an exchange of obligations - "I agree to pay you Tuesday in exchange for a hamburger Monday." We have a valid contract that includes an offer, acceptance, and yes, consideration.
I mean, stop for just a second and rub your two brain cells together... Maybe you do all your shopping through Amazon and pay in advance, but have you ever heard of an invoice? As in, work gets done or goods are delivered, and then you receive an invoice and have 30 days to send a check? This is how 90% of business operates in the real world, and particularly on large contracts, with millions of dollars at stake. Do you really think that the law would be structured that those were all invalid? Are you seriously that stupid?
while I agree that if you send me widgets you should get paid, I have never in my life heard of the purchaser getting to ding the store for extra costs if they had to go elsewhere. I find it very interesting. Can you point me to cases?
Sure... The relevant law, since we're talking about purchase of goods, is UCC article 2-712, which has been adopted by every state:
2-712. "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods.
(1) After a breach within the preceding section the buyer may "cover" by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller.
(2) The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (Section 2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(3) Failure of the buyerto effect cover within this section does not bar him from any other remedy.
So, as I said, if the original price was $10/widget and I have to go elsewhere and pay someone $15/widget, you would owe me the difference ($5/widget), plus any other incidental or consequential damages (my attorney's fees, court costs, etc.). But it may be reduced by expenses I saved - for example, if the third party charges more per widget, but has free shipping, while you would've charged me $25, then that comes off the top.
Basically, the point of the remedy is to put me in the situation I would have been in, had you not breached - I get my widgets, I'm out only $10/widget, and you're responsible for getting me to that point.
Hahahahah why don't we meet up at 2pm tomorrow at the cafe outside Berlin train station where we can sit down and you can ponder suing me for breaking this contract when I don't show up.
The original comment referred to a purchase of goods, not just an appointment. All of my subsequent comments were regarding that purchase of goods.
The funny thing about lawyers is there's always 2 in the room, and one of them always loses, and in this case it's the one that thinks that there is any kind of legal liability introduced when making an appointment.
No, that'd be neither of us. Instead, there's one of us who keeps yammering on about appointments, while the other one is talking about an order of goods. From GP's comment:
Your secretary making the call on your behalf to setup an appointment or order goods does not enter you into a legally binding contract, either --- it's a good faith order, but not binding until goods or money have been exchanged and accepted by the otherparty.
And my reply:
That's not true. Your secretary ordering goods is acting as your agent, with authority to bind you as principal.
You'll note that in that reply, I quoted the parent this way: "Your secretary making the call on your behalf to... order goods does not enter you into a legally binding contract, either." Note that the reference to setting up an appointment was removed.
And then you:
And the entire process is still not legally binding even if you do it yourself. Learn some contract law.
And given that this was in reply to the prior quote about "Your secretary ordering goods is acting as your agent, with authority to bind you as principal," then you're claiming that ordering goods over the phone does not create a contract. And that's just wrong.
Also you don't need to be a JD to have understood contract law. A few years of university is enough.
Apparently not actually enough in your case. And yes, IAAL.
That's not true. Your secretary ordering goods is acting as your agent, with authority to bind you as principal.
Nope. The secretary is acting on your behalf, but has no legal agency: at least we'll assume you didn't give the secretary a credit card and authorize the assistant to pay for and complete the order. The employee handbook even specifically says the employee has no such agency to bind the company or their manager to a contract.
Unfortunately for you, though, the vendor doesn't have a copy of your employee handbook. Instead, an agent purporting to act for you, the principal, and having authority to do so, has entered into a contract on your behalf, and the vendor has no reason to assume that your agent lacks that authority.
Technically, an arrangement to meet with a planned purchase has been made, but there's no binding contract to buy any services just calling on the phone to place an order: the parties to the agreement haven't even shown evidence of their commitment.
It's still possible you could appear to pick up your order, and they tell you they were out of X, or cannot fulfill --- you have no recourse, just because they told you it will be ready in 15 minutes does not make it a contract, And you could fail to go pick up your order, which might leave them a bit upset, but their recourse is essentially to refuse you future orders, or require you prepay or sign something.
I'm not sure if you've ever placed an order for something over the phone, but no, they are not mere arrangements to meet to enter into a contract later. If you call me up and say "I'd like to buy 10 widgets at $10 each for delivery to this address," and I send you those 10 widgets to that address, you better believe I'm going to seek my $100. And similarly, if I fail to send you any widgets and you had to go to an alternate vendor and pay $15 each, you're going to come after me for the extra $50 you paid to cover. There's no requirement under any state or federal law that parties to a contract have to appear in person, or that a contract doesn't exist unless one party pays in advance.
What makes you think a machine can enter a legally binding contract?
Your secretary making the call on your behalf to... order goods does not enter you into a legally binding contract, either --- it's a good faith order, but not binding until goods or money have been exchanged and accepted by the otherparty.
In this case, the contract is not "made" until you receive goods or make payment.
That's not true. Your secretary ordering goods is acting as your agent, with authority to bind you as principal.
Even better idea, in addition to not giving away your data, why not also practice good operational security habits? Pick secure answers to those retarded questions. You are storing your password in an encrypted password safe, right? Add some more fields...
Site X thinks my first car was a "eterverinkipen43", but site Y thinks it was a "trocklencaterm39". Some people think my mother's maiden name was "metablersilippe8", but others think it is "glytenclegratio3".
Which is great until you lose access to your password safe, and instead have to provide the answer to security questions to a service representative on the phone.
Yes, it's a security hole. But the answer shouldn't be "destroy any recovery systems."
According to the Arizona Department of Transportation, at least as of 2016, there were 952 fatalities in car accidents in Arizona, or approximately 2.61 deaths per day.
Surely Governor Ducey is not going to be a hypocrite, particularly when lives are at stake: "Arizona must take action now!"
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, yeah, so thin ... but:
Isn't this the point of the eGPU strategy? To offload real computational work onto a dedicated device that is properly chassied for the job?
The real question might be why spend the money on an unlocked i9 instead of an eGPU.
This... I've got a 2015 MBP, but I'm running 3 monitors off a GTX 1060 in an external case. At this rate, I'm thinking my next machine should be the lightest, smallest, longest battery life laptop out there for traveling purposes, with a pair of eGPUs at my home and office.
I've been playing X-Plane 11, so I'm happy to step in.
Ok thank you!!
Question....if a person gets 2 red cards are they tossed out of the game at that point?
Only a single red card = tossed out of the game. Two yellows = one red = tossed. No way to get two reds, unless the player charges back in from the sidelines after getting tossed. ;)
And Comey basically threw the election to Trump by reopening the Clinton investigation in late October.
Whether or not it had a significant effect on undecided voters or voter turnout, consider what would have happened if he didn't reopen the investigation: he had just uncovered a huge number of allegedly "missing" Clinton emails, some of which included classified material, on the laptop of a guy about to be indicted for transmitting Weiner pictures to minors. It couldn't be kept hush-hush, since it was going to be in a publicly-available federal indictment of a major public figure that the media was following. If he tried to sit on it until after the election, then all of the "Obama officials aiding Clinton pedophile-ring" rumors would blow up even more.
Basically, his hands were tied. It was going to become public, and anything other than immediate release and re-opening the investigation would make it look even more like something shady was going on. This was his best attempt to get it back out of the news cycle by election day.
With lotto and scratchers, most of the tickets are worthless. They don't enhance your life...
They are a form of entertainment. For the price of a ticket you rent a fantasy about what you would do with the money if you were to win, which indeed has some known chance of actually happening. It is fantasy that lasts for a few days (or until you scratch the ticket).
You can also fantasize for free and there's only a marginally smaller chance of your fantasy coming true.
Why this form of entertainment is "worthless" compared to playing an on-line game is unclear to me. Indeed, you can indulge in the lottery fantasy while doing other useful things. Not so the on-line game.
Other useful things like... watching TV or reading a book or playing a video game for entertainment? Oh, wait. The online game already has an entertainment purpose.
So the price is always artificially inflated.
it appears that the flaw with Excel's PRNG is that, if you know the seed, then all of the resulting numbers are predictable.
That's how all PRNGs work.
... as opposed to another flaw like "the fifteenth generated random number is always 0.321," Sparky.
[If] it really is novel and nothing like it has been patented before it will be granted.
If you work for a large company, use the phrase, "with a computer," and can pay the application fees, it will be granted.
Why is this comment modded down as "funny"? There is so much truth in this statement. It's so funny that it makes me want to cry. This comment should be modded up, and the moderator should be modded down.
Because it's not true? Google Patents provides free and fast searching of issued patents. Go find one that was granted just because it says "with a computer".
It's definitely true. Of course, no one actually writes those exact words into the title.
So, definitely not true then? Got it.
One has to give the patent examiner a little credit for finding prior art, so the ideas that are simply reapplied to a computer, a phone, a GPU, etc. are written such that the idea sounds novel.
If something is written such that the idea sounds novel, maybe it's, you know, novel?
I should point out that you've backed away from the "use the phrase 'on a computer' and it'll be granted" claim to "write something that achieves a known result in a novel way on a device that couldn't previously do it and your patent will be granted," and I don't see why that's a bad result.
Let's see if we can find a pattern here:
1. Creating a general algorithm that can be applied to many different problems - No protection since math is neither patentable nor copyrightable.
2. Apply the algorithm to a specific problem - Patentable. 25 years of protection.
3. Writing a shitty almost off-topic post on slashdot in a thread about the algorithm - Copyright. Life + 70 years!
So, the less important the creative work is to society is, the more protection it gets.
Only 20 years for patents, not 25. But yes, copyright term is significantly longer, but it's much narrower. Copyright only protects that specific item. So if you copy-paste someone's source code, you violate their copyright. If you reverse engineer it and rewrite it, then you don't, but you may violate their patent. In fact, if you independently come up with the same code, even if it's 100% identical down to variable names, you don't violate their copyright because you haven't actually "copied" anything, but you would violate their patent.
That is complete bullshit. One of patent's requirement is, it CAN'T BE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. You spill the beans before you file for the patent, invalid. Someone has published the same idea before you, INVALID.
The problem is, that USPTO by default grants patents, the extensive checks are expensive and they do not bother anymore - let the courts sort it out.
This is false - the USPTO by default rejects patent applications.
[If] it really is novel and nothing like it has been patented before it will be granted.
If you work for a large company, use the phrase, "with a computer," and can pay the application fees, it will be granted.
Why is this comment modded down as "funny"? There is so much truth in this statement. It's so funny that it makes me want to cry. This comment should be modded up, and the moderator should be modded down.
Because it's not true? Google Patents provides free and fast searching of issued patents. Go find one that was granted just because it says "with a computer".
The story is about an issue that is completely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether the "RND" function is ideally random in a mathematical sense. It only matters whether the "random" number generated is independent of the identities of the people applying to be admitted.
It isn't even that. Just because the distribution of random numbers isn't random it doesn't mean the sort order based on that isn't random. For example, suppose my random number generator only put out numbers divisible by 1/(2^16) which is what a finite precision binary based system is going to do. This distribution isn't random because it's zero density at many possible floating point values. Yet the sort order might be perfectly random.
Even further, it appears that the flaw with Excel's PRNG is that, if you know the seed, then all of the resulting numbers are predictable. So, for example, if you can duplicate the starting seed, then it's trivial to generate the exact same list of 100,000 random numbers for their sort function. According to a linked article within TFA:
"The generator is run in user mode rather than in kernel mode, and therefore it is easy to access its state even without administrator privileges. The initial values of part of the state of the generator are not set explicitly, but rather are defined by whatever values are present on the stack when the generator is called.
The cryptographers discovered that the state of the generator is refreshed with system generated entropy only after generating 128KB of output for the process running it. "The result of combining this observation with our attack is that learning a single state may reveal 128KB of the past and future output of the generator," they explain.
But that's irrelevant to this process. They're not using the same numbers generated previously. They're not providing their starting values at the beginning of the year so that people can determine the best days to submit their application. Once the seed is known, the output is predictable, but if the seed is unknown, then the output is effectively random. And since the seed is generated at 'sort' time, after the records have been entered, there's no way to know what placement is useful in advance.
You guys are still paying for incoming calls, right? Here in Europe everyone picks up their phone, all the time, always. If we don't want to be called by a certain number we just add it to the blocking list.
Most spam calls here spoof their numbers, sometimes even appearing with the same area code and exchange as your own number and similar to those of your neighbors, so you end up having to manually block thousands or tens of thousands of numbers.
Don't fall into the 20/20 hindsight trap here. The police where rolling up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages based on what they thought was a credible 911 call of an eyewitness. When the unfortunate guy opens the door, it goes from bad to worse and apparently an innocent movement was seen as a threat. It may seem a bit extreme in hindsight, but from the cop's perspective this is one of those dangerous situations that, like it or not, justifies the use of deadly force.
Ah, but don't fall into the "whatever the police do must have been reasonable" trap either. As you note, the police rolled up on what they thought was an active shooter situation with hostages. When the door is opened and someone steps out, isn't it significantly more likely that it's one of the hostages? I mean, that's kinda the whole point of hostage situations.
Furthermore, from the video that was leaked, the cops were all behind cover. What was the danger that justified the use of deadly force? It appears that the only person who was actually in danger was the victim, and disregarding the fact that that danger was from the cops, at most, they should have assumed that the danger was the alleged hostage taker behind him.
But, they should be held responsible for defamation when they cover the story in a misleading, reputation-damaging way. For example, after the recent crash in Florida that resulted in two deaths, there were lots of articles with headlines like "Autopilot-equipped Tesla Crashes, Kills 2" or "Fatal Crash in Florida Involving Tesla with Autopilot," and the articles would start off with "A Tesla Model S equipped with Autopilot was involved in a fatal crash..." But when you get to the very end of the article, there'd be a throwaway sentence about how autopilot was not in use at the time. That's textbook yellow journalism.
Now, of course, under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, they can't be held liable for defamation, because it's near impossible to prove actual malice (though how much do you want to bet someone at those papers shorts Tesla before publishing the article?). But that's yet another reason that decision should be reined in.
five deaths in Tesla vehicles.
A quick search for Telsa deaths suggests that ALL the fatalities (of people in Teslas) have been when autopilot was running.
You need to redo that search. There was the crash in Florida just a couple weeks ago that resulted in fatalities and did not have autopilot running - instead, it was the entirely predictable result of 3 teenagers driving at 60 mph around a turn known as "deadman's curve".
OTOH if I want to have a bit of libtard fun I like to ask my right wing friends/acquaintances if healthcare is a right or not try to make them answer yes or no. After 5-10 minutes of speeches and heming and hawing they'll either say 'no' or admit we ought to have a national healthcare system.
While I do believe we should have a national healthcare system because it makes economic sense, healthcare cannot possibly be considered a right: what if people decided being a doctor sucks and they didn't want to be doctors anymore? If healthcare is a right, then the government should force them to go into the profession and provide service... but that would violate the 13th amendment's ban on slavery. And the right of people to not be forced to provide healthcare must trump any alleged right to receive healthcare.
And that is where you are 100% fucking wrong. Re-read the post you replied to. The premise was made that when you purchase goods it's no legally binding until money has changed hands. You said it's not true. You are wrong about this. 100% There are 3 basic tenants to forming a binding contract, offer, acceptance, and consideration. Without the last there is no binding contract.
Yes, Sparky, but there's no requirement that said consideration must change hands at that time. A valid contract can include an exchange of obligations - "I agree to pay you Tuesday in exchange for a hamburger Monday." We have a valid contract that includes an offer, acceptance, and yes, consideration.
I mean, stop for just a second and rub your two brain cells together... Maybe you do all your shopping through Amazon and pay in advance, but have you ever heard of an invoice? As in, work gets done or goods are delivered, and then you receive an invoice and have 30 days to send a check? This is how 90% of business operates in the real world, and particularly on large contracts, with millions of dollars at stake. Do you really think that the law would be structured that those were all invalid? Are you seriously that stupid?
while I agree that if you send me widgets you should get paid, I have never in my life heard of the purchaser getting to ding the store for extra costs if they had to go elsewhere. I find it very interesting. Can you point me to cases?
Sure... The relevant law, since we're talking about purchase of goods, is UCC article 2-712, which has been adopted by every state:
2-712. "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods.
(1) After a breach within the preceding section the buyer may "cover" by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller.
(2) The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (Section 2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(3) Failure of the buyerto effect cover within this section does not bar him from any other remedy.
So, as I said, if the original price was $10/widget and I have to go elsewhere and pay someone $15/widget, you would owe me the difference ($5/widget), plus any other incidental or consequential damages (my attorney's fees, court costs, etc.). But it may be reduced by expenses I saved - for example, if the third party charges more per widget, but has free shipping, while you would've charged me $25, then that comes off the top.
Basically, the point of the remedy is to put me in the situation I would have been in, had you not breached - I get my widgets, I'm out only $10/widget, and you're responsible for getting me to that point.
The classic case for this is Laredo Hides v. H&H Meat.
Hahahahah why don't we meet up at 2pm tomorrow at the cafe outside Berlin train station where we can sit down and you can ponder suing me for breaking this contract when I don't show up.
The original comment referred to a purchase of goods, not just an appointment. All of my subsequent comments were regarding that purchase of goods.
The funny thing about lawyers is there's always 2 in the room, and one of them always loses, and in this case it's the one that thinks that there is any kind of legal liability introduced when making an appointment.
No, that'd be neither of us. Instead, there's one of us who keeps yammering on about appointments, while the other one is talking about an order of goods. From GP's comment:
Your secretary making the call on your behalf to setup an appointment or order goods does not enter you into a legally binding contract, either --- it's a good faith order, but not binding until goods or money have been exchanged and accepted by the otherparty.
And my reply:
That's not true. Your secretary ordering goods is acting as your agent, with authority to bind you as principal.
You'll note that in that reply, I quoted the parent this way: "Your secretary making the call on your behalf to... order goods does not enter you into a legally binding contract, either." Note that the reference to setting up an appointment was removed.
And then you:
And the entire process is still not legally binding even if you do it yourself. Learn some contract law.
And given that this was in reply to the prior quote about "Your secretary ordering goods is acting as your agent, with authority to bind you as principal," then you're claiming that ordering goods over the phone does not create a contract. And that's just wrong.
Also you don't need to be a JD to have understood contract law. A few years of university is enough.
Apparently not actually enough in your case. And yes, IAAL.
That's not true. Your secretary ordering goods is acting as your agent, with authority to bind you as principal.
Nope. The secretary is acting on your behalf, but has no legal agency: at least we'll assume you didn't give the secretary a credit card and authorize the assistant to pay for and complete the order. The employee handbook even specifically says the employee has no such agency to bind the company or their manager to a contract.
Unfortunately for you, though, the vendor doesn't have a copy of your employee handbook. Instead, an agent purporting to act for you, the principal, and having authority to do so, has entered into a contract on your behalf, and the vendor has no reason to assume that your agent lacks that authority.
Technically, an arrangement to meet with a planned purchase has been made, but there's no binding contract to buy any services just calling on the phone to place an order: the parties to the agreement haven't even shown evidence of their commitment.
It's still possible you could appear to pick up your order, and they tell you they were out of X, or cannot fulfill --- you have no recourse, just because they told you it will be ready in 15 minutes does not make it a contract, And you could fail to go pick up your order, which might leave them a bit upset, but their recourse is essentially to refuse you future orders, or require you prepay or sign something.
I'm not sure if you've ever placed an order for something over the phone, but no, they are not mere arrangements to meet to enter into a contract later. If you call me up and say "I'd like to buy 10 widgets at $10 each for delivery to this address," and I send you those 10 widgets to that address, you better believe I'm going to seek my $100. And similarly, if I fail to send you any widgets and you had to go to an alternate vendor and pay $15 each, you're going to come after me for the extra $50 you paid to cover. There's no requirement under any state or federal law that parties to a contract have to appear in person, or that a contract doesn't exist unless one party pays in advance.
That's not true. Your secretary ordering goods is acting as your agent, with authority to bind you as principal.
And the entire process is still not legally binding even if you do it yourself. Learn some contract law.
Yes, it is, and yes, I know contract law. Where did you get your JD?
What makes you think a machine can enter a legally binding contract?
Your secretary making the call on your behalf to... order goods does not enter you into a legally binding contract, either --- it's a good faith order, but not binding until goods or money have been exchanged and accepted by the otherparty.
In this case, the contract is not "made" until you receive goods or make payment.
That's not true. Your secretary ordering goods is acting as your agent, with authority to bind you as principal.
Even better idea, in addition to not giving away your data, why not also practice good operational security habits? Pick secure answers to those retarded questions. You are storing your password in an encrypted password safe, right? Add some more fields...
Site X thinks my first car was a "eterverinkipen43", but site Y thinks it was a "trocklencaterm39". Some people think my mother's maiden name was "metablersilippe8", but others think it is "glytenclegratio3".
Which is great until you lose access to your password safe, and instead have to provide the answer to security questions to a service representative on the phone.
Yes, it's a security hole. But the answer shouldn't be "destroy any recovery systems."
Surely Governor Ducey is not going to be a hypocrite, particularly when lives are at stake: "Arizona must take action now!"