I highly doubt that you can find an attorney to take your case on contingency on the basis of one share for which you paid $3.50. I'm not sure what sort of damages you're expecting to collect, but if the stock dropped to $0.00, you'd at best be able to collect $3.50.
That's even if you actually had a legitimate case. See this post as to why I think you wouldn't.
I take it you've never needed a lawyer. Consider yourself lucky that you've gone through life without an insurance company or other big business trying to screw you over.
As far as #2 goes, Actually, I'm kind of surprised that someone hasn't tried #2 yet
the share price of SCOX is still higher than it was pre-litigation. So Darl has actually increased shareholder value since the days before litigation. Anyone who bought after the start of litigation was buying into "litigation as business model", and has no leg to stand on, regardless of whether they got in early and cheap or too late and when the stock was at it's peak.
What needs to happen, and probably won't (due to an underfunded SEC and a look-the-other-way Justice Dept.), is an investigation of stock manipulation by Canopy Group as well as an investigation of the Microsoft connection.
SCOG was already a soon-to-be dead company, before they took on IBM. If anything, Darl has managed to keep SCOG alive, and for a while, with an impressive stock price. I'm sure he has made Ralph Yarro very happy, and that's the only shareholder he need ever answer to.
I can't speak for Windows users, but there has long been a thriving software development cottage industry for the Mac. And the reason it thrives is because people are willing to pay for good software. I've got over a dozen little apps that I've paid anywhere from $5 to $20. I like donationware the best. I'm still running one nag-ware app without paying just because.
Discalimer: Have I ever downloaded warez before? Yes. Will I ever again? Doubtful, but primarily because of the security issues, not the ethical ones.
What good is this to anyone who wants to keep data beyond half a decade?
Not much, what a boon to the MPAA! When you buy a DVD, you'll really be buying the privilege to watch a particular movie for a limited amount of time. If you want to see it again after your disc decomposes, you'll have to purchase it again.
This will be great for recycling discs to feedstocks, since most of Hollywood's output is swill fit for pigs anyway. (Sorry if I offended any pigs. I am such an insensitive bastard.)
Sorry if I hurt your feelings with that (if any) thing. I just threw it in there without specifically saying I meant credibility with the auditor, not in general. I'm sure you have lots of credibility with lots of people.
I spent a little time with google and "neocon" (and a few other terms, some independent of "neocon") this weekend, and came to an interesting conclusion: Neocon philosophy is *never* wrong. Any mistakes happen because the philosophy was not put into practice vigorously enough. In other words, they compromised too much, and if they'd been sufficiently uncompromising they would have succeeded. Rather a disturbing world view, IMHO. Of course, this is the result of an hour or so on the Web, and my view can be modified by facts.
No, I think you pretty much got it, except that in practice, when neocon theory fails it is usually due to the meddling of liberals.
Creationists believe that a great MIND is behind everything, things that are perceivable as well as things that are imperceptible. If there is evolution, it is certainly guided by an incredible mind. Many attach the label GOD to this mind.
This is a fine philosophy, but it has nothing to do with the practice of science. Thus, it should be taught, if at all, in a philosophy class or a religious studies class. Teaching a particular philosophy as if it science is wrong.
That depends... if you're recording a movie off of television and playback on your mobile device (time shifting) or have made a copy of a movie that you legally own on DVD,Video Tape, etc (fair use) it is legal.
What you're describing is a de minimus Copyright infraction - technically illegal, but not strictly enforced (or enforceable).
Nice latin. =)
You're addressing the the second part of the the argument, about copying DVDs, etc., which is certainly considered illegal under the DMCA, but your point doesn't address the first part. Time shifting is considered fair use. Also, if the DVD movie didn't have encryption, making a back up copy could be considered fair use.
I recently found that this is in a state of play (tip of the hat to AKAIMBatman). In certain circumstances, courts have ruled that shrinkwrap and click through licenses are valid. See the ProCD case.
Here's an interesting, if lengthy, quote from the case law:
What then does the current version of the UCC have to say? We think that the place to start is sec. 2-204(1): "A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract." A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance. A buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance. And that is what happened. ProCD proposed a contract that a buyer would accept by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. This Zeidenberg did. He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance. So although the district judge was right to say that a contract can be, and often is, formed simply by paying the price and walking out of the store, the UCC permits contracts to be formed in other ways. ProCD proposed such a different way, and without protest Zeidenberg agreed. Ours is not a case in which a consumer opens a package to find an insert saying "you owe us an extra $10,000" and the seller files suit to collect. Any buyer finding such a demand can prevent formation of the contract by returning the package, as can any consumer who concludes that the terms of the license make the software worth less than the purchase price. Nothing in the UCC requires a seller to maximize the buyer's net gains.
Section 2-606, which defines "acceptance of goods", reinforces this understanding. A buyer accepts goods under sec. 2-606(1)(b) when, after an opportunity to inspect, he fails to make an effective rejection under sec. 2-602(1). ProCD extended an opportunity to reject if a buyer should find the license terms unsatisfactory; Zeidenberg inspected the package, tried out the software, learned of the license, and did not reject the goods. We refer to sec. 2-606 only to show that the opportunity to return goods can be important; acceptance of an offer differs from acceptance of goods after delivery, see Gillen v. Atalanta Systems, Inc., 997 F.2d 280, 284 n.1 (7th Cir. 1993); but the UCC consistently permits the parties to structure their relations so that the buyer has a chance to make a final decision after a detailed review.
Word to the wise.
(Oh, I'm feeling lazy, so I wasn't going to look up the case, but then I thought, "It's for Moofie, it's the least you can do.")
Considering that the source of the statistics is mig2, you might consider wearing a clown suit complete with over-size shoes, when you do your presentation to the bank security auditor.
I'm all for "getting Apple into the Enterprise", but don't waste your cred (if any) by setting your phaser to silly.
So you're saying that whatever GPU MS ends up using won't be available for Apple for at least a year and a half, nor will any equivalent or better GPU? Is that what you're saying?
There's nothing illegal about having or starting such a site. It's just extremely foolhardy, as anything you publish on such a site can be used against you in a court of law.
Now, if they put up material that had been sealed by the court, that would be a different matter entirely. That's worse than foolhardy, it's suicidal. Same if they violate a gag order.
The best way to fight FUD and spin is, quite simply, with facts. To say that Astroturfing is a form of DoS is twisting the definition to suit your purposes, and is putting a spin on it. Why not use the truth instead of resorting to such tactics? Are you running for office or something?
Slashdot Mirror
I highly doubt that you can find an attorney to take your case on contingency on the basis of one share for which you paid $3.50. I'm not sure what sort of damages you're expecting to collect, but if the stock dropped to $0.00, you'd at best be able to collect $3.50.
That's even if you actually had a legitimate case. See this post as to why I think you wouldn't.
I take it you've never needed a lawyer. Consider yourself lucky that you've gone through life without an insurance company or other big business trying to screw you over.
Good reply. I couldn't have explained it better.
As far as #2 goes, Actually, I'm kind of surprised that someone hasn't tried #2 yet
the share price of SCOX is still higher than it was pre-litigation. So Darl has actually increased shareholder value since the days before litigation. Anyone who bought after the start of litigation was buying into "litigation as business model", and has no leg to stand on, regardless of whether they got in early and cheap or too late and when the stock was at it's peak.
What needs to happen, and probably won't (due to an underfunded SEC and a look-the-other-way Justice Dept.), is an investigation of stock manipulation by Canopy Group as well as an investigation of the Microsoft connection.
SCOG was already a soon-to-be dead company, before they took on IBM. If anything, Darl has managed to keep SCOG alive, and for a while, with an impressive stock price. I'm sure he has made Ralph Yarro very happy, and that's the only shareholder he need ever answer to.
I can't speak for Windows users, but there has long been a thriving software development cottage industry for the Mac. And the reason it thrives is because people are willing to pay for good software. I've got over a dozen little apps that I've paid anywhere from $5 to $20. I like donationware the best. I'm still running one nag-ware app without paying just because.
Discalimer: Have I ever downloaded warez before? Yes. Will I ever again? Doubtful, but primarily because of the security issues, not the ethical ones.
just for you!
Don't tell me you've never heard of Underclocking? =)
Ahhhhh, my G5 is too fast!
Duh! They test with a time machine!
Let the corny jokes commence.
Atkins dieters are eagerly awaiting the Blu-ray disc composed of pork rind.
What good is this to anyone who wants to keep data beyond half a decade?
Not much, what a boon to the MPAA! When you buy a DVD, you'll really be buying the privilege to watch a particular movie for a limited amount of time. If you want to see it again after your disc decomposes, you'll have to purchase it again.
This will be great for recycling discs to feedstocks, since most of Hollywood's output is swill fit for pigs anyway. (Sorry if I offended any pigs. I am such an insensitive bastard.)
Sorry if I hurt your feelings with that (if any) thing. I just threw it in there without specifically saying I meant credibility with the auditor, not in general. I'm sure you have lots of credibility with lots of people.
No, I think you pretty much got it, except that in practice, when neocon theory fails it is usually due to the meddling of liberals.
Creationists believe that a great MIND is behind everything, things that are perceivable as well as things that are imperceptible. If there is evolution, it is certainly guided by an incredible mind. Many attach the label GOD to this mind.
This is a fine philosophy, but it has nothing to do with the practice of science. Thus, it should be taught, if at all, in a philosophy class or a religious studies class. Teaching a particular philosophy as if it science is wrong.
I don't know about the first three, but "Bob" was out of the office that week.
That's why it's called Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. =)
When I was a freshman in college, they had us read Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglass Hofstadter for a core humanities class.
If I didn't read /. at least once a day, I'd be putting my departments security at risk.
/. 40 times a day = 40 times the security. =)
Reading
What you're describing is a de minimus Copyright infraction - technically illegal, but not strictly enforced (or enforceable).
Nice latin. =)
You're addressing the the second part of the the argument, about copying DVDs, etc., which is certainly considered illegal under the DMCA, but your point doesn't address the first part. Time shifting is considered fair use. Also, if the DVD movie didn't have encryption, making a back up copy could be considered fair use.
Here's an interesting, if lengthy, quote from the case law:
Word to the wise.
(Oh, I'm feeling lazy, so I wasn't going to look up the case, but then I thought, "It's for Moofie, it's the least you can do.")
Considering that the source of the statistics is mig2, you might consider wearing a clown suit complete with over-size shoes, when you do your presentation to the bank security auditor.
I'm all for "getting Apple into the Enterprise", but don't waste your cred (if any) by setting your phaser to silly.
C:\> = My OS is giving me a brain tumor, but I have a cool goatee.
So you're saying that whatever GPU MS ends up using won't be available for Apple for at least a year and a half, nor will any equivalent or better GPU? Is that what you're saying?
That picture was so lame it was funny. =) Especially the tiny face.
There's nothing illegal about having or starting such a site. It's just extremely foolhardy, as anything you publish on such a site can be used against you in a court of law.
Now, if they put up material that had been sealed by the court, that would be a different matter entirely. That's worse than foolhardy, it's suicidal. Same if they violate a gag order.
Ever notice that you never see Ari and Saeed together? Coincidence? I think not.
The best way to fight FUD and spin is, quite simply, with facts. To say that Astroturfing is a form of DoS is twisting the definition to suit your purposes, and is putting a spin on it. Why not use the truth instead of resorting to such tactics? Are you running for office or something?