It's really quite simple. Microsoft, as a monopolist in not one but two markets (operating systems and office software) can't use their monopoly in one for the purpose of helping the other. Thus, even using it "as a card for bargaining" is abusing their monopoly, as they would therefore receive a better deal in bargaining with the card than without it (if this wasn't the case, there would be no need to have it "as a card" in the first place).
There are laws against age discrimination, and if age discrimination is a factor in an employment decision, then the employer has broken the law, even if there were also legitimate reasons for that decision.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
IANAL yet, but I can tell you that recouping losses has always been the point of tort law - to return a person to the condition they would be in had they not been wronged, as best as can be done by the law.
Which brings me to my next point..... ERASE YOUR EXPIRED TAPES!!!!!! This is how Morgan Stanley lost the 1.45 BILLION dollar case. During Discovery, it was found that the data that was needed to LOSE the case was on tapes that had expired data on them. Welllllll... guess what? It's still there, still viable, and cost them a shiteload of cash.
Maybe avoiding tortious conduct might be a better idea?
More on topic, it doesn't seem to me like Apple has much to worry about here, if the problem is not anything intrinsic to Macs, but rather the price. As the 18-25 year olds graduate from college, get jobs, and get promoted, the difference in price between a Mac and a cheap PC becomes less and less significant.
On the other hand, if you have a contractual obligation to pay someone $100, and that person later decides to forgive your debt after you've only paid $60, it would be accurate to say that you've been given $40 - the result would be the same if they took the $100 you owed and gave you a gift of $40.
Your mistake is in analogizing between the government (whom you have a legal and moral obligation to support) and a mugger, with whom you have no such relation.
The real problem with the ADA is that there is no real cost benefit analysis.
Wrong. Public accomodations are only required to make "reasonable" efforts. Courts have held that costs to make the changes are part of testing if changes are "reasonable."
Online stores are undoubtedly a public accomodation, and the accomodation necessary to allow the blind to use the site is very reasonable, assuming that the original web deisgners weren't completely retarded when the designed the site. Simply create an HTML-only version and use alt-tags. Since you're designing it for the blind, it doesn't even have to look good, it just has to contain all the same relevant information that the standard page does.
That's all well and good, but look at the monumental hissy fit that gets thrown every time international law gets brought up in relation to anything else here. People were literally calling for Justice Stevens to be impeached for considering it in Roper v. Simmons.
I regularly post on two boards that use BBCode and one board that uses HTML (this one). If you look at my post history, you'll note that sometimes I use the appropriate tags, and sometimes I don't. In fact, in one thread (Will the U.S. Lose Control of the Internet?), I managed to use both methods... thankfully, it wasn't so bad that I went with both in the same post. What this really means is that I need to remember to use Preview rather than just submitting straight off.
It's the gaming equivalent of literary criticism. In other words, the author is analyzing this as art. "Fun for fun's sake" isn't sufficient to make a truly artistic game, just like it's not enough to turn your typical trashy romance novel into a work of art.
Only if you're tried. Note that you have no right to a speedy trial http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./tem p/~c109SI2Qxg:e2789: , Sect 948b(d)(A). Maybe I've just missed it, but I see no procedure in the law to challenge a determination that one is an alien unlawful enemy combatant.
Here's the passage about habeas corpus: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./tem p/~c109SI2Qxg:e116515: Section 7(a)'(e)(1): [i]No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.[/i]
The government arrests a U.S. citizen, claiming that they're an alien unlawful alien combatant. They can't challenge that decision, because no court has jurisdiction to hear the case. The government has no obligation to charge them.
No court in America is going to allow Bush to hold you as an enemy combatant for suing him over Internet policy.
Not that I think that the Administration would go that far, but I feel it's necessary to point out that without habeas corpus, you can be seized and you have no ability to challenge the ruling; it doesn't matter that no court would ever affirm your arrest, because you'll never be able to get in front of a court.
It's really rather simple. The people who are offended by this are only offended because the main character is kissing a male. They are not similarly offended when the main character kisses a female. Therefore, they are discriminating on the basis of sex, which makes them sexist.
Perhaps if a person doesn't like being called a bigot, they should work to get rid of the attitudes that make them one, rather than complaining about the label?
The Department of Defense doesn't have anything to do with COPA. Reno and Gonzales were Secretaries of Justice.
Of course, the way things are going, we'll be fighting The War Against Titillation (living up to the acronym far better than the current iteration) and attacking rogue states for hosting WMAs (weapons of mass arousal).
The taxable event happens when the goods have monetary value for you. When I buy my car, dining room table and chairs, TVs, computers, and pearl necklace, you haven't gained anything of monetary value. However, if you break the law and steal those goods, now they have monetary value for you and they can be taxed. Similarly, if I consent to giving you those goods, they now have monetary value for you, so you get taxed for them.
Similarly, when you "acquire" virtual goods or currency, they do not have monetary value. Your contract with the provider that you agreed to in order to "acquire" those virtual goods says as much. Therefore, they only become worth real currency when you breach that contract and transfer the virtual goods to someone else in exchange for real currency. Keep in mind that the Terms of Service generally indicate that the service provider maintains ownership of your character and your goods.
Slashdot Mirror
Analogies don't need to be original or clever if they're apt.
It's really quite simple. Microsoft, as a monopolist in not one but two markets (operating systems and office software) can't use their monopoly in one for the purpose of helping the other. Thus, even using it "as a card for bargaining" is abusing their monopoly, as they would therefore receive a better deal in bargaining with the card than without it (if this wasn't the case, there would be no need to have it "as a card" in the first place).
Draw is wonderful for flowcharts and other diagrams.
Your post assumes that there are no artistic works that would not be made because of copyright laws as they exist now.
There are laws against age discrimination, and if age discrimination is a factor in an employment decision, then the employer has broken the law, even if there were also legitimate reasons for that decision.
If it doesn't have a way to prevent or restrict second-generation copying, it doesn't fall under AHRA, as best I can tell.
So you're proposing we get rid of inheritance entirely? After all... people should earn what they get, right?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
IANAL yet, but I can tell you that recouping losses has always been the point of tort law - to return a person to the condition they would be in had they not been wronged, as best as can be done by the law.
Which brings me to my next point..... ERASE YOUR EXPIRED TAPES!!!!!! This is how Morgan Stanley lost the 1.45 BILLION dollar case. During Discovery, it was found that the data that was needed to LOSE the case was on tapes that had expired data on them. Welllllll... guess what? It's still there, still viable, and cost them a shiteload of cash.
Maybe avoiding tortious conduct might be a better idea?
What does "high-street box shifter" mean?
More on topic, it doesn't seem to me like Apple has much to worry about here, if the problem is not anything intrinsic to Macs, but rather the price. As the 18-25 year olds graduate from college, get jobs, and get promoted, the difference in price between a Mac and a cheap PC becomes less and less significant.
On the other hand, if you have a contractual obligation to pay someone $100, and that person later decides to forgive your debt after you've only paid $60, it would be accurate to say that you've been given $40 - the result would be the same if they took the $100 you owed and gave you a gift of $40.
Your mistake is in analogizing between the government (whom you have a legal and moral obligation to support) and a mugger, with whom you have no such relation.
I didn't say that it had to be static. Pull the data from the backend, and have your frontend put that data in an accessible form.
The real problem with the ADA is that there is no real cost benefit analysis.
Wrong. Public accomodations are only required to make "reasonable" efforts. Courts have held that costs to make the changes are part of testing if changes are "reasonable."
Online stores are undoubtedly a public accomodation, and the accomodation necessary to allow the blind to use the site is very reasonable, assuming that the original web deisgners weren't completely retarded when the designed the site. Simply create an HTML-only version and use alt-tags. Since you're designing it for the blind, it doesn't even have to look good, it just has to contain all the same relevant information that the standard page does.
That's all well and good, but look at the monumental hissy fit that gets thrown every time international law gets brought up in relation to anything else here. People were literally calling for Justice Stevens to be impeached for considering it in Roper v. Simmons.
I regularly post on two boards that use BBCode and one board that uses HTML (this one). If you look at my post history, you'll note that sometimes I use the appropriate tags, and sometimes I don't. In fact, in one thread (Will the U.S. Lose Control of the Internet?), I managed to use both methods... thankfully, it wasn't so bad that I went with both in the same post. What this really means is that I need to remember to use Preview rather than just submitting straight off.
[i]Bullying happens. People messing with other people happens[/i]
Life's not fair, so I can hurt people however I want, right?
[i]Rockstar's job in developing Bully was to make an entertaining game, not to push some progressive agenda[/i]
Who said they were under an obligation to do so? The author of the article certainly didn't.
Someone else installing the software for you isn't a defense, as they would be considered to be acting as your agent.
It's the gaming equivalent of literary criticism. In other words, the author is analyzing this as art. "Fun for fun's sake" isn't sufficient to make a truly artistic game, just like it's not enough to turn your typical trashy romance novel into a work of art.
Only if you're tried. Note that you have no right to a speedy trial http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./tem p/~c109SI2Qxg:e2789: , Sect 948b(d)(A). Maybe I've just missed it, but I see no procedure in the law to challenge a determination that one is an alien unlawful enemy combatant.
m p/~c109SI2Qxg:e116515:
Here's the passage about habeas corpus:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./te
Section 7(a)'(e)(1):
[i]No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.[/i]
The government arrests a U.S. citizen, claiming that they're an alien unlawful alien combatant. They can't challenge that decision, because no court has jurisdiction to hear the case. The government has no obligation to charge them.
No court in America is going to allow Bush to hold you as an enemy combatant for suing him over Internet policy.
Not that I think that the Administration would go that far, but I feel it's necessary to point out that without habeas corpus, you can be seized and you have no ability to challenge the ruling; it doesn't matter that no court would ever affirm your arrest, because you'll never be able to get in front of a court.
It's really rather simple. The people who are offended by this are only offended because the main character is kissing a male. They are not similarly offended when the main character kisses a female. Therefore, they are discriminating on the basis of sex, which makes them sexist.
Perhaps if a person doesn't like being called a bigot, they should work to get rid of the attitudes that make them one, rather than complaining about the label?
The Department of Defense doesn't have anything to do with COPA. Reno and Gonzales were Secretaries of Justice.
Of course, the way things are going, we'll be fighting The War Against Titillation (living up to the acronym far better than the current iteration) and attacking rogue states for hosting WMAs (weapons of mass arousal).
The taxable event happens when the goods have monetary value for you. When I buy my car, dining room table and chairs, TVs, computers, and pearl necklace, you haven't gained anything of monetary value. However, if you break the law and steal those goods, now they have monetary value for you and they can be taxed. Similarly, if I consent to giving you those goods, they now have monetary value for you, so you get taxed for them.
Similarly, when you "acquire" virtual goods or currency, they do not have monetary value. Your contract with the provider that you agreed to in order to "acquire" those virtual goods says as much. Therefore, they only become worth real currency when you breach that contract and transfer the virtual goods to someone else in exchange for real currency. Keep in mind that the Terms of Service generally indicate that the service provider maintains ownership of your character and your goods.