Incidentally, the American Bar Association also requires a certain amount of pro-bono work for attorneys to maintain their membership (and lawyers are required to have membership to practice).
Lawyers are required to be on the competent bar for their jurisdiction, at least in most jurisdictions (I've been told that exceptions exist, but don't know for sure). They are most certainly not required to be ABA members.
IANAL, but my father is and we often discuss such things, as he wants me to go into this field as well.
If you decide to go into law, listening carefully will go a long way. Mine's an attorney, too, and I'm also thinking about law; dad's on the Oklahoma Bar, and inactive--but still a member of--the Ohio Bar. He lives in Ohio, but practices for the Federal government (Department of the Air Force). He's not a member of the ABA, and has neither the desire nor the intent to join.
Your answer is to run away to someone in charge, and that just exacerbates the problem.
Since you won't call the cops, I think that some of my buddies and I should come over to your place and see if you have anything we could use...
Bring it. You won't like the consequences.
Hey, you've inspired me! I'm gonna go home and slap my wife and kids around, and if they complain, I'll tell them to quit being pussies. I mean, I'm bigger than they are, and my friends are higher status than theirs (bankers and local politicians vs housewives and kids), so the situation's almost identical to school bullying.
Thanks for the tip! I'll never be a pussy again!
If you can't recognize the difference between "assault" and "self defense," then it's your loss. The difference does exist, though, and it's quite definite. "Assault" is when you initiate force against the innocent; "self defense" is when you, as the innocent victim, stand up to your attacker. The differences exist in definition (see previous), law (one is legal, the other not), and, most critically, morality (self defense is not only acceptable, it is the only morally correct course of action; to allow onesself to be subjugated by another who has no authority to do so is a crime against the Creator himself). I suggest Jeff Snyder's A Nation of Cowards if you want to understand what I mean; he expresses it far more eloquently than I could.
Being against Bush means being for balanced budgets. Clinton balanced the federal budget.
Clinton and a hostile, strongly-conservative Congress balanced the Federal budget. Left to his own devices, there's little evidence to suggest that Clinton would have managed to operate within the country's means. The only reason the budget balanced was a combination of a Congress and an Executive who hated each other, combined with a booming economy.
Not that I'm defending our current crop of Republicans. Both parties need to be ejected from power. Preferably into deep space.
...by the FAA, not buy the first guy with a camera to ask.
Part 121 doesn't seem to have a requirement either way (at least not explicitly--it's probably included in the 121 operations certificate held by the airlines), but 91.203 is quite clear:
91.203 (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.
Before anyone worries about the standards of Oprah's latest gem we should have something in place to hold "news" publicists/broadcasters responsible for their tripe.
You do. It's called a remote control.
For extra effect, pick up the phone and tell them why you're not watching them anymore. Double points for calling their advertisers and telling them.
This is absolutely perfect. StarForce is accusing Doctorow of slander and/or libel (probably libel, as his remarks were published). Now, if he wants to press that case, Doctorow will have the opportunity to validate his claims in court. If he fails, he'll be found liable (of libel), and punished accordingly--as it should be. If he succeeds, plaintiff (StarForce) will lose, and will get the additional bonus of having their software be demonstrated in court as malware.
As an additional bonus, if StarForce loses, Doctorow can countersue, also for slander and/or libel--if you accuse me of lying, and I'm not, it damages my reputation.
As long as Doctorow is confident in his claims, his only thought should be "bring it on."
Cell phones won't work at altitude. Cell towers have a down-tilt built into the antenna so the signals don't emanate upwards. Turn on your cell phone in the air sometime - it won't find a signal.
Really? Then I must have been imagining that time I was in the right seat of a King Air 200 from Norman, OK (KOUN) to Charlevoix, Michigan (KCVX), at FL250 (about 25,000 feet), and my passenger was on the phone somewhere over Kansas or Missouri or something.
Or the time I called somebody who answered from the left seat of a Cessna 150 inbound from Tulsa. (I didn't know he was flying at the time, else I wouldn't have called.) Or my co-workers who talked about using the phone while flying a Baron.
You completely misses my point: How exactly are rural states better represented when Florida sends 27 Republicans than they would be if Florida instead sent representatives proportional to the actual votes (What a concept !) (say 12 Republicans, 11 Democrats, 2 liberals, 2 green f.ex)
And you've completely missed the reality of the situation. There's nothing that requires Florida, or any other state, to give away its electoral votes as a single block. That decision falls to the states. There's nothing to prevent a state from assigning its votes any way it wants (by way of the legislature). Most states choose winner-take-all; a few (I don't recall which ones) apportion the votes proportionally or semi-proportionally. In theory, there's nothing to prevent the legislature from making the decision directly. Further, whether electors are legally bound to vote for the "winning" candidate varies from state to state; in many states, an elector is not legally required to vote for "his" candidate. From time to time, electors do go renegade, though I don't know if that has ever changed the outcome of an election.
Short answer, though, is that if you don't like how your state apportions its electoral votes, you can change it.
1- Localities and states that do not have many ecommerce sites contained within, start a program to give ecommerce startups a tax break to open up shop in their state. End result? Less the company pays in corporate/business taxes and more the local people pay in other taxes in order to make up the difference which results in a total tax take that may be less or more then before?
2- Companies move or register with a state that does not have an income tax or has a much lower income tax rate then average.
So...1) attracts more businesses, enlarging the tax base and creating employment, and 2) does the same, while encouraging other jurisdictions to decrease their taxes via a process known as "competition."
Guess I'm just trying to see where the problem is.
And nothing would make the gov't happier than being paid up front, rather than having to wait several months for income tax installments (per the current system).
Ever owned a business? I assure you, the government's not waiting several months for payment. At most, they're waiting three months, as employers are required to make quarterly payments. Further, there's a threshold--I've forgotten what it is, but it's not that high--at which they must make immediate payments (within 48 hours, I think). Larger employers may be making weekly, or even daily, tax payments.
What you do on 15 April is absolutely peanuts compared to what the government takes in. Please tell me you're not one of those people who, on 15 April, says "hey, I didn't have to pay any taxes, I got money back!"
Actually, there's evidence that suggests that capitalism--that is, free and open market economies--do produce free, peaceful societies. Check out "A Capitalist Peace" over at Reason ; it's pretty interesting.
Heh. The reading comprehension level around here looks to be about third-grade at best. It annoys me, too, but for some reason, I keep coming back. Morbid curiosity, I guess.
God forbid anyone would have any sympathy for a guy that is getting felony charges for stealing stuff.
Uhhh...did we read the same story? The felony charge wasn't for the theft, it was for the forgery. You know, the premeditated part. And, if you go read the police report, you'll see that he was an adult (19 years old), an electrical engineering student (should have some concept of right and wrong, and of the value of the product he was stealing), and was a repeat offender, having been observed pulling the same stunt two weeks earlier. This is not a case of "poor innocent kid gets abused by society," this is a case of an intelligent adult consciously and willfully engaging in premeditated crime, and doing so repeatedly.
Where's D) Don't run a red light and force someone to have to break or accelerate
E) Pause at lights to avoid the casual light runner
Right next to F), Read the situation for comprehension this time, and exercise a little bit of thought. You're the driver with the green light--not running the red light doesn't apply to you. Sometimes, you're doing everything right, and some stupid git does something that puts you at risk, through no fault of your own. As for E), pausing at green lights often isn't practical. Yes, you pause before starting when the light turns green, but if you're already in motion (as would be the case on a lot of streets where the light just stays green until it detects other traffic), pausing isn't reasonable.
I've been in situations like this, where the only reasonable option to avoid an accident is to dump the clutch and go. And no, I don't drive a muscle car; I drive a Mazda B2300 (4-cyl Ford Ranger), so when I say "dump the clutch," I mean "downshift two gears, put the spurs to the hamsters, and dump the clutch."
IANAL, but I don't think this is entirely true. If she signed a contract with them, and in the contract they promised to let her attend, they may be forced to do it, even in the case the contract contained conditions like that she never drinks etc. Conditions like that are not necessarily legally enforcible.
Actually, the "can't drink alcohol" concept has been tested in court. In Hamer v. Sidway, the appellate court held that abstaining from drinking (among other things) constituted a forebearance, and was thus legitimate consideration in a contract. If you contract with a school, the terms will likely be they give you an education, and you give them money and obedience to their code of conduct. If that code includes a prohibition against drinking, then you can be held to that term.
Public schools may have some issues with this as a consequence of the fact that they are governmental entities, but private schools are pretty well covered. Also consider that contracts need not be executed in writing, save for a few cases (real estate being the most notable).
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *SGI community when NYSE confirmed that *SGI market share price has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 dollar per share. Coming on the heels of a recent stock filing which plainly states that *SGI has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *SGI is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent investor confidence test.
Neil:
I'm actually giving serious thought to going to law school, and I have an interest in a lot of this stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a case that held that, because running a program resulted in copying it from media to system memory, a license was required to even run it? That is, mere execution resulted in a copyright violation, and thus you couldn't execute the code without a license to make that additional copy? I could be totally off my rocker here, but I could have sworn I'd heard such a case; it may have involved Wang (don't know why I think that, but it's nagging at the back of my mind). Have you heard of that case, or something similar?
Oh, five or six inches. Seriously, go check out Rock River's National Match A2 (I'd provide a direct link, but RRA is blocked by the corporate firewall). 3/4 MOA from the factory.
Let me get this straight: you're saying you have personal knowledge of fraudulent practices in the medical industry that lead to substandard diagnostic equipment, possibly putting patients' lives at risk?
And you chose to post this as an AC on Slashdot, rather than calling the FDA or a news outlet?!?
Sir, you are either a lying troll, or you are one of the most callous, inhumane, self-centered people on the face of the planet. "Oh, this stuff is bad, but I can't risk losing my job for the sake of a bunch of peoples' lives."
Sorry, but I'm calling BS until I see some sort of credible confirmation.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, the American Bar Association also requires a certain amount of pro-bono work for attorneys to maintain their membership (and lawyers are required to have membership to practice).
Lawyers are required to be on the competent bar for their jurisdiction, at least in most jurisdictions (I've been told that exceptions exist, but don't know for sure). They are most certainly not required to be ABA members.
IANAL, but my father is and we often discuss such things, as he wants me to go into this field as well.
If you decide to go into law, listening carefully will go a long way. Mine's an attorney, too, and I'm also thinking about law; dad's on the Oklahoma Bar, and inactive--but still a member of--the Ohio Bar. He lives in Ohio, but practices for the Federal government (Department of the Air Force). He's not a member of the ABA, and has neither the desire nor the intent to join.See also: the Lautenburg Amendment.
Your answer is to run away to someone in charge, and that just exacerbates the problem.
Since you won't call the cops, I think that some of my buddies and I should come over to your place and see if you have anything we could use...
Bring it. You won't like the consequences.
Hey, you've inspired me! I'm gonna go home and slap my wife and kids around, and if they complain, I'll tell them to quit being pussies. I mean, I'm bigger than they are, and my friends are higher status than theirs (bankers and local politicians vs housewives and kids), so the situation's almost identical to school bullying. Thanks for the tip! I'll never be a pussy again!
If you can't recognize the difference between "assault" and "self defense," then it's your loss. The difference does exist, though, and it's quite definite. "Assault" is when you initiate force against the innocent; "self defense" is when you, as the innocent victim, stand up to your attacker. The differences exist in definition (see previous), law (one is legal, the other not), and, most critically, morality (self defense is not only acceptable, it is the only morally correct course of action; to allow onesself to be subjugated by another who has no authority to do so is a crime against the Creator himself). I suggest Jeff Snyder's A Nation of Cowards if you want to understand what I mean; he expresses it far more eloquently than I could.
Being against Bush means being for balanced budgets. Clinton balanced the federal budget.
Clinton and a hostile, strongly-conservative Congress balanced the Federal budget. Left to his own devices, there's little evidence to suggest that Clinton would have managed to operate within the country's means. The only reason the budget balanced was a combination of a Congress and an Executive who hated each other, combined with a booming economy.Not that I'm defending our current crop of Republicans. Both parties need to be ejected from power. Preferably into deep space.
Part 121 doesn't seem to have a requirement either way (at least not explicitly--it's probably included in the 121 operations certificate held by the airlines), but 91.203 is quite clear:
91.203
(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.
Before anyone worries about the standards of Oprah's latest gem we should have something in place to hold "news" publicists/broadcasters responsible for their tripe.
You do. It's called a remote control.
For extra effect, pick up the phone and tell them why you're not watching them anymore. Double points for calling their advertisers and telling them.
This is absolutely perfect. StarForce is accusing Doctorow of slander and/or libel (probably libel, as his remarks were published). Now, if he wants to press that case, Doctorow will have the opportunity to validate his claims in court. If he fails, he'll be found liable (of libel), and punished accordingly--as it should be. If he succeeds, plaintiff (StarForce) will lose, and will get the additional bonus of having their software be demonstrated in court as malware.
As an additional bonus, if StarForce loses, Doctorow can countersue, also for slander and/or libel--if you accuse me of lying, and I'm not, it damages my reputation.
As long as Doctorow is confident in his claims, his only thought should be "bring it on."
Cell phones won't work at altitude. Cell towers have a down-tilt built into the antenna so the signals don't emanate upwards. Turn on your cell phone in the air sometime - it won't find a signal.
Really? Then I must have been imagining that time I was in the right seat of a King Air 200 from Norman, OK (KOUN) to Charlevoix, Michigan (KCVX), at FL250 (about 25,000 feet), and my passenger was on the phone somewhere over Kansas or Missouri or something.
Or the time I called somebody who answered from the left seat of a Cessna 150 inbound from Tulsa. (I didn't know he was flying at the time, else I wouldn't have called.) Or my co-workers who talked about using the phone while flying a Baron.
Yes, Virginia, cell phones work in airplanes.
You completely misses my point: How exactly are rural states better represented when Florida sends 27 Republicans than they would be if Florida instead sent representatives proportional to the actual votes (What a concept !) (say 12 Republicans, 11 Democrats, 2 liberals, 2 green f.ex)
And you've completely missed the reality of the situation. There's nothing that requires Florida, or any other state, to give away its electoral votes as a single block. That decision falls to the states. There's nothing to prevent a state from assigning its votes any way it wants (by way of the legislature). Most states choose winner-take-all; a few (I don't recall which ones) apportion the votes proportionally or semi-proportionally. In theory, there's nothing to prevent the legislature from making the decision directly. Further, whether electors are legally bound to vote for the "winning" candidate varies from state to state; in many states, an elector is not legally required to vote for "his" candidate. From time to time, electors do go renegade, though I don't know if that has ever changed the outcome of an election.
Short answer, though, is that if you don't like how your state apportions its electoral votes, you can change it.
1- Localities and states that do not have many ecommerce sites contained within, start a program to give ecommerce startups a tax break to open up shop in their state. End result? Less the company pays in corporate/business taxes and more the local people pay in other taxes in order to make up the difference which results in a total tax take that may be less or more then before? 2- Companies move or register with a state that does not have an income tax or has a much lower income tax rate then average.
So...1) attracts more businesses, enlarging the tax base and creating employment, and 2) does the same, while encouraging other jurisdictions to decrease their taxes via a process known as "competition."
Guess I'm just trying to see where the problem is.
And nothing would make the gov't happier than being paid up front, rather than having to wait several months for income tax installments (per the current system).
Ever owned a business? I assure you, the government's not waiting several months for payment. At most, they're waiting three months, as employers are required to make quarterly payments. Further, there's a threshold--I've forgotten what it is, but it's not that high--at which they must make immediate payments (within 48 hours, I think). Larger employers may be making weekly, or even daily, tax payments.
What you do on 15 April is absolutely peanuts compared to what the government takes in. Please tell me you're not one of those people who, on 15 April, says "hey, I didn't have to pay any taxes, I got money back!"
Actually, there's evidence that suggests that capitalism--that is, free and open market economies--do produce free, peaceful societies. Check out "A Capitalist Peace" over at Reason ; it's pretty interesting.
Thank you for reading what I wrote :)
Heh. The reading comprehension level around here looks to be about third-grade at best. It annoys me, too, but for some reason, I keep coming back. Morbid curiosity, I guess.
If he does felony time, he won't be a voter anymore. Convicted felons are disenfranchised.
...in some jurisdictions. Other places, no. Just depends on where he is.
God forbid anyone would have any sympathy for a guy that is getting felony charges for stealing stuff.
Uhhh...did we read the same story? The felony charge wasn't for the theft, it was for the forgery. You know, the premeditated part. And, if you go read the police report, you'll see that he was an adult (19 years old), an electrical engineering student (should have some concept of right and wrong, and of the value of the product he was stealing), and was a repeat offender, having been observed pulling the same stunt two weeks earlier. This is not a case of "poor innocent kid gets abused by society," this is a case of an intelligent adult consciously and willfully engaging in premeditated crime, and doing so repeatedly.
Didn't know the consequences? He does now.
Where's
D) Don't run a red light and force someone to have to break or accelerate
E) Pause at lights to avoid the casual light runner
Right next to F), Read the situation for comprehension this time, and exercise a little bit of thought. You're the driver with the green light--not running the red light doesn't apply to you. Sometimes, you're doing everything right, and some stupid git does something that puts you at risk, through no fault of your own. As for E), pausing at green lights often isn't practical. Yes, you pause before starting when the light turns green, but if you're already in motion (as would be the case on a lot of streets where the light just stays green until it detects other traffic), pausing isn't reasonable.
I've been in situations like this, where the only reasonable option to avoid an accident is to dump the clutch and go. And no, I don't drive a muscle car; I drive a Mazda B2300 (4-cyl Ford Ranger), so when I say "dump the clutch," I mean "downshift two gears, put the spurs to the hamsters, and dump the clutch."
IANAL, but I don't think this is entirely true. If she signed a contract with them, and in the contract they promised to let her attend, they may be forced to do it, even in the case the contract contained conditions like that she never drinks etc. Conditions like that are not necessarily legally enforcible.
Actually, the "can't drink alcohol" concept has been tested in court. In Hamer v. Sidway , the appellate court held that abstaining from drinking (among other things) constituted a forebearance, and was thus legitimate consideration in a contract. If you contract with a school, the terms will likely be they give you an education, and you give them money and obedience to their code of conduct. If that code includes a prohibition against drinking, then you can be held to that term.
Public schools may have some issues with this as a consequence of the fact that they are governmental entities, but private schools are pretty well covered. Also consider that contracts need not be executed in writing, save for a few cases (real estate being the most notable).
I am, of course, not a lawyer.
It's official; NYSE now confirms SGI is dying.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *SGI community when NYSE confirmed that *SGI market share price has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 dollar per share. Coming on the heels of a recent stock filing which plainly states that *SGI has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *SGI is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent investor confidence test.
nah, intelligent society is about 6 million. Its the other 5.4 billion screwing it up for the rest of us. ;)
And the fact that you blew that by two orders of magnitude suggests that you fit into which group, now?
Neil:
I'm actually giving serious thought to going to law school, and I have an interest in a lot of this stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a case that held that, because running a program resulted in copying it from media to system memory, a license was required to even run it? That is, mere execution resulted in a copyright violation, and thus you couldn't execute the code without a license to make that additional copy? I could be totally off my rocker here, but I could have sworn I'd heard such a case; it may have involved Wang (don't know why I think that, but it's nagging at the back of my mind). Have you heard of that case, or something similar?
what is your group size anyway, gotta be huge
Oh, five or six inches. Seriously, go check out Rock River's National Match A2 (I'd provide a direct link, but RRA is blocked by the corporate firewall). 3/4 MOA from the factory.
Any congressmember who votes to limit free speech, online or anywhere else, must be fired immediately Ideally, out of a cannon.
This has already been done, about two years ago. See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/slashdot2/ and particularly http://www.uwplatt.edu/web/webstandards/slashdot.h tml
Such a reader would also probably enable you to read what's in your neighbour's cupboard as well.
Now, if I could just train my dog to get the neighbor's groceries like I did with the newspaper.
Let me get this straight: you're saying you have personal knowledge of fraudulent practices in the medical industry that lead to substandard diagnostic equipment, possibly putting patients' lives at risk?
And you chose to post this as an AC on Slashdot, rather than calling the FDA or a news outlet?!?
Sir, you are either a lying troll, or you are one of the most callous, inhumane, self-centered people on the face of the planet. "Oh, this stuff is bad, but I can't risk losing my job for the sake of a bunch of peoples' lives."
Sorry, but I'm calling BS until I see some sort of credible confirmation.