There is a constitutional right to privacy. See Roe v. Wade. Just because the constitution doesn't expressly say something doesn't mean it's not there. The constitution is a very small, shell of a document.
For example, the constitution doesn't say "limited times" means "forever" in regards to the copyright clause of article 1, section 8, cl. 8... but it's implied, according to the SCOTUS. So is a constitutional right to privacy.
Assuming she found out, she'd still be suing even if he hadn't used her name.
yeah but they sell the hardware at a small loss, expecting to make it up on subscription fees. If you bypass that to use it for free, get a lawyer. Hell, start a website message board to simply talk about ways to "reverse engineer" the Tivo to use it w/out a subscription and get ready to be DMCA-raped up the goat ass with a nice, cold, DMCA-flavored injunction.
I did not say "the only people to ever suicide bomb are muslims/arabs"
If I told you your family was being held captive by a suicide bomber and the only way they'll be set free is if you can guess whether the bomber is muslim or not (yes or no)... you're telling me there's a pretty good chance it's a member of the LTTE? Bullshit. You're the one blinded by political correctness. More people named mohammad have blown themselves up in the past 6 months than members of the LTTE throughout its entire existence. Again.. get real (even if it sounds sorta yucky).
how is his comment racist? You seem to be the one who has it drilled into your brain that all suicide bombers are muslim/arab. He didn't say anything that implied that.
And suicide bombers of today are muslim/arab. All of them (or a majority substantial enough to be significant). Deal with it. They tend to have dark skin, believe in allah and live in poor, theocratic countries located in the middle east. Nothing racist about pointing out the obvious, even if you'd rather not hear it. Oh my god, did I say they have dark skin? Yep. So does michael jordan. Now, if I said those people were inferior for the sole reason that their skin is dark, then it would be a racist statement. To say they are inferior because they keep blowing shit up... that's not racist, it's a moral judgment of their actions. (we'll get to the "they" part in a minute)
Here are some more non-racist truisms:
Mexicans eat tacos. Asians like rice. There are lots of jews in hollywood. Black people come from africa, and they're better athletes than white people. There are more blacks in prison than in college. Islam is now, and has been historically, a violent religion. More southerners are KKK members than are northerners.
Deal with it, and don't toss around the "r" word everytime you hear something that rubs your "PC" clit the wrong way. Muslims aren't even a "race," anyway, and Arab is technically a person from a region, not a race either.
We all (should) have equal rights and opportunities, but we're not all equal (in the equivalence sense of the word). Accept it and love it, and don't whine whenever it's pointed out to you. If your hair is a different color than mine, you and I are not equal. Yay.
Now, repeat after me: Muslims are prone to suicide bombings. Do you watch the news? There's an average of 2-3 a day. I'll bet you $1,000 that the next person to suicide-bomb inside israel (or hell, anywhere inside the middle east) will be a muslim. Bet you the same amount the next person/people to suicide attack america will be muslim(s). Or do you think there is an equal chance the next 9/11 will be caused by atheists and/or zoroastrians? Get real.
Your scenario is practically just like the Asahi Metal case. 480 U.S. 102 (very important SCOTUS personal jurisdiction case).
The answer is clearly no, assuming it's not part of the deal for the Taiwanese company to open an office in the US and sell your products in California. There's no "degree of separation" test, though. It's a matter of what a company does directed at the forum state. Did they advertise there? Do they have an office there? Do they have retail outlets there? Do they have agents there? Do they sell to retailers there? One has to do more than simply put something into the stream of commerce with the possibility that it might end up in california (or any other state) in order for a california court to have personal jurisdiction over you.
It is very disingenuous to say it "applies worldwide" without noting that it applies to worldwide companies who are "doing business" in the state.
As long as a company is doing business in the state, "doing business" defined as: having a registered agent in the state of California, having a physical office, contracting to do business with vendors in the state (parts manufacturers, suppliers), or having retail outlets in the state[.]
If the company is purposely availing themselves in california, taking advantage of california laws in running its business (i.e. it gets to use CA laws to enforce its contracts, use california police to prevent its outlets from being robbed, etc.) then it is perfectly fair for the company to have to obey this law. If you are selling something on ebay it doesn't apply to you, so don't worry. This only applies to people who intentionally and knowningly do business in the state. Nobody who this law applies to is going to be shocked that "woah california laws apply to me?" They know or should know.
This whole "sell at a loss and sue your customers to act in a way which will generate a future profit" business model has to go. It's done with the Xbox, tivo, and plenty of other hardware systems. If your hardware can be used without having to pay you future costs, then don't sell the hardware at a loss. These companies think they can control the behavior of their customers, when in reality that's just never going to happen. If they'd realize that, they'd realize that they have to make a profit intially, rather than expect a lawsuit-based profit later on down the road.
This is like charging the students for cigarettes and giving them out in order to curb pot smoking. They are totally different and only related in the sense that one is more attractive than the other.
I keep mine in a tall pile. Thousands of CDs and they only take about 6 square inches of floor space. Kinda like a really tall spindle without the center "pole" (which is for pussies).
With our tax dollars, of course.
Probably one for each computer. No wonder the war cost over 20 billion dollars. I resent this more than the $300 toilet seats. And they're probably paying $20 a minute for realtime "premier" help from MS, too.
yeah I realize that, but they're saying we can calculate the distance to alternate universes from that point. So, if i drive a light-year north (just play along) then the point changes and therefore the distance to that alternate universe changes. it seems like you'd never be able to get there because it would always keep moving away from you whenever you moved.
i read the article and it's interesting, but the whole time i'm thinking... it seems like the theories they propose are all geo-centric. Didn't we realize earth isn't the center of the universe a while back? All the "hubble sphere" stuff... seems like identifying "a universe" is based on earth being in the center. what if we're towards the edge? then these theories don't work (it seems).
I dunno about you, but I'm just not satisfied with a product unless it writes shit on my boot sector. Without that 'feature' I feel like I'm getting ripped off.
Indeed, we're not supposed to issue them, but I suppose we're not supposed to go to war without UN approval/backing. Just like any other country, we'll do what's in our best interests and breach any treaty that gets in the way (especially environmental ones). Not to sound cynical -- that's what we should do. An act of congress supersedes a treaty, as you pointed out. I say we go for it.
The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 11, gives the gov't the right to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. This is a formal declaration given to a private citizen by a gov't giving him/her the right to seize the assets of a citizen of a foreign nation. So, we can have international bounty hunters, too. Unfortunately the letter of M&R went out of fashion about a century ago, but hey, it's still in the Constitution. This came up during the debate about what to do in the "war on terror"... for example, see http://www.progress.org/archive/fold232.htm
We should issue letters of M&R for recipients of spam and ISP operators. They're stealing our property and their governments aren't doing anything to compensate us (hell, neither is our gov't).
Yep, Microsoft has definitely made advances in way to snatch away the rights of those who use their products. Well done guys! Can't wait for palladium....
What's with the lack of faith? faith.... ya know... like jesus n stuff.
Re:the defense is a product of the offense
on
The Virus Did It
·
· Score: 1
the one thing all politicians can agree on (and no politicians would dare disagree with) is that kiddie porn is the worst problem our society faces, requiring the most drastic of measures to be employed. yeah, people who jerk off to kids is sick, but as long as they're not hurting the kid(s) directly there's no problem. I don't by the "the fact that they like it creates a market for it which in turn causes children to be hurt" argument. If you sexually abuse a kid, you go to jail--it's already a crime and always has been as far as I know (maybe not in Roman times and in Arkansas). The tenuous "market theory" is not a good enough reason for banning pictures in the land of the free. The taliban did stuff like that...
the defense is a product of the offense
on
The Virus Did It
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
When the crime is as insane as "possession of a picture" (a digital one, no less), the defenses to the crime will sound somewhat nutty as well. It's to be expected. The only solution is to eradicate due process entirely and just execute the acccused immediately. Considering we're talking about kiddie porn here, i'm sure a vast majority of people wouldn't mind doing so at all.
The guy writes one of the best books of the past 50 years (called "Underworld") and they take the title (which they're allowed to do, of course) and make a friggin werewolf movie out of it. Oh well. I just hope too many literature snobs don't go see the movie expecting something it's not:)
I've always been of the opinion that advertising the price including the subtracted rebate amount is false advertising and a deceptive trade practice. The advertised price should be the price you have to pay to leave the store with the item without being arrested for theft. I realize they say "after $x mail-in rebate" but it's still deceptive in my opinion. It's like having a 365 day a year "sale" year after year.
Advertising a false price (not what you pay when you go to the store to buy it is "false") is deceptive. They can advertise the "real" price and say "oh and you also get to take an additional $x off with a mail-in rebate"... as long as the real price is the one in big, bold "look at our super-dooper price!" letters. In other words, the asterisk can say "plus mail in rebate!" but not "after mail in rebate."
Write your congressfucker to have your state's DTPA modified to cover this bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a constitutional right to privacy. See Roe v. Wade. Just because the constitution doesn't expressly say something doesn't mean it's not there. The constitution is a very small, shell of a document.
For example, the constitution doesn't say "limited times" means "forever" in regards to the copyright clause of article 1, section 8, cl. 8... but it's implied, according to the SCOTUS. So is a constitutional right to privacy.
Assuming she found out, she'd still be suing even if he hadn't used her name.
yeah but they sell the hardware at a small loss, expecting to make it up on subscription fees. If you bypass that to use it for free, get a lawyer. Hell, start a website message board to simply talk about ways to "reverse engineer" the Tivo to use it w/out a subscription and get ready to be DMCA-raped up the goat ass with a nice, cold, DMCA-flavored injunction.
I did not say "the only people to ever suicide bomb are muslims/arabs"
If I told you your family was being held captive by a suicide bomber and the only way they'll be set free is if you can guess whether the bomber is muslim or not (yes or no)... you're telling me there's a pretty good chance it's a member of the LTTE? Bullshit. You're the one blinded by political correctness. More people named mohammad have blown themselves up in the past 6 months than members of the LTTE throughout its entire existence. Again.. get real (even if it sounds sorta yucky).
how is his comment racist? You seem to be the one who has it drilled into your brain that all suicide bombers are muslim/arab. He didn't say anything that implied that.
And suicide bombers of today are muslim/arab. All of them (or a majority substantial enough to be significant). Deal with it. They tend to have dark skin, believe in allah and live in poor, theocratic countries located in the middle east. Nothing racist about pointing out the obvious, even if you'd rather not hear it. Oh my god, did I say they have dark skin? Yep. So does michael jordan. Now, if I said those people were inferior for the sole reason that their skin is dark, then it would be a racist statement. To say they are inferior because they keep blowing shit up... that's not racist, it's a moral judgment of their actions. (we'll get to the "they" part in a minute)
Here are some more non-racist truisms:
Mexicans eat tacos. Asians like rice. There are lots of jews in hollywood. Black people come from africa, and they're better athletes than white people. There are more blacks in prison than in college. Islam is now, and has been historically, a violent religion. More southerners are KKK members than are northerners.
Deal with it, and don't toss around the "r" word everytime you hear something that rubs your "PC" clit the wrong way. Muslims aren't even a "race," anyway, and Arab is technically a person from a region, not a race either.
We all (should) have equal rights and opportunities, but we're not all equal (in the equivalence sense of the word). Accept it and love it, and don't whine whenever it's pointed out to you. If your hair is a different color than mine, you and I are not equal. Yay.
Now, repeat after me: Muslims are prone to suicide bombings. Do you watch the news? There's an average of 2-3 a day. I'll bet you $1,000 that the next person to suicide-bomb inside israel (or hell, anywhere inside the middle east) will be a muslim. Bet you the same amount the next person/people to suicide attack america will be muslim(s). Or do you think there is an equal chance the next 9/11 will be caused by atheists and/or zoroastrians? Get real.
"study hard and learn to hack, you'll go to heaven"
same thing.
Your scenario is practically just like the Asahi Metal case. 480 U.S. 102 (very important SCOTUS personal jurisdiction case). The answer is clearly no, assuming it's not part of the deal for the Taiwanese company to open an office in the US and sell your products in California. There's no "degree of separation" test, though. It's a matter of what a company does directed at the forum state. Did they advertise there? Do they have an office there? Do they have retail outlets there? Do they have agents there? Do they sell to retailers there? One has to do more than simply put something into the stream of commerce with the possibility that it might end up in california (or any other state) in order for a california court to have personal jurisdiction over you.
It is very disingenuous to say it "applies worldwide" without noting that it applies to worldwide companies who are "doing business" in the state.
As long as a company is doing business in the state, "doing business" defined as: having a registered agent in the state of California, having a physical office, contracting to do business with vendors in the state (parts manufacturers, suppliers), or having retail outlets in the state[.]
If the company is purposely availing themselves in california, taking advantage of california laws in running its business (i.e. it gets to use CA laws to enforce its contracts, use california police to prevent its outlets from being robbed, etc.) then it is perfectly fair for the company to have to obey this law. If you are selling something on ebay it doesn't apply to you, so don't worry. This only applies to people who intentionally and knowningly do business in the state. Nobody who this law applies to is going to be shocked that "woah california laws apply to me?" They know or should know.
This whole "sell at a loss and sue your customers to act in a way which will generate a future profit" business model has to go. It's done with the Xbox, tivo, and plenty of other hardware systems. If your hardware can be used without having to pay you future costs, then don't sell the hardware at a loss. These companies think they can control the behavior of their customers, when in reality that's just never going to happen. If they'd realize that, they'd realize that they have to make a profit intially, rather than expect a lawsuit-based profit later on down the road.
This is like charging the students for cigarettes and giving them out in order to curb pot smoking. They are totally different and only related in the sense that one is more attractive than the other.
I keep mine in a tall pile. Thousands of CDs and they only take about 6 square inches of floor space. Kinda like a really tall spindle without the center "pole" (which is for pussies).
It's up in Redmond, WA....
With our tax dollars, of course. Probably one for each computer. No wonder the war cost over 20 billion dollars. I resent this more than the $300 toilet seats. And they're probably paying $20 a minute for realtime "premier" help from MS, too.
yeah I realize that, but they're saying we can calculate the distance to alternate universes from that point. So, if i drive a light-year north (just play along) then the point changes and therefore the distance to that alternate universe changes. it seems like you'd never be able to get there because it would always keep moving away from you whenever you moved.
i read the article and it's interesting, but the whole time i'm thinking... it seems like the theories they propose are all geo-centric. Didn't we realize earth isn't the center of the universe a while back? All the "hubble sphere" stuff... seems like identifying "a universe" is based on earth being in the center. what if we're towards the edge? then these theories don't work (it seems).
I dunno about you, but I'm just not satisfied with a product unless it writes shit on my boot sector. Without that 'feature' I feel like I'm getting ripped off.
Indeed, we're not supposed to issue them, but I suppose we're not supposed to go to war without UN approval/backing. Just like any other country, we'll do what's in our best interests and breach any treaty that gets in the way (especially environmental ones). Not to sound cynical -- that's what we should do. An act of congress supersedes a treaty, as you pointed out. I say we go for it.
The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 11, gives the gov't the right to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. This is a formal declaration given to a private citizen by a gov't giving him/her the right to seize the assets of a citizen of a foreign nation. So, we can have international bounty hunters, too. Unfortunately the letter of M&R went out of fashion about a century ago, but hey, it's still in the Constitution. This came up during the debate about what to do in the "war on terror" ... for example, see http://www.progress.org/archive/fold232.htm
We should issue letters of M&R for recipients of spam and ISP operators. They're stealing our property and their governments aren't doing anything to compensate us (hell, neither is our gov't).
Yep, Microsoft has definitely made advances in way to snatch away the rights of those who use their products. Well done guys! Can't wait for palladium....
What's with the lack of faith? faith.... ya know... like jesus n stuff.
the one thing all politicians can agree on (and no politicians would dare disagree with) is that kiddie porn is the worst problem our society faces, requiring the most drastic of measures to be employed. yeah, people who jerk off to kids is sick, but as long as they're not hurting the kid(s) directly there's no problem. I don't by the "the fact that they like it creates a market for it which in turn causes children to be hurt" argument. If you sexually abuse a kid, you go to jail--it's already a crime and always has been as far as I know (maybe not in Roman times and in Arkansas). The tenuous "market theory" is not a good enough reason for banning pictures in the land of the free. The taliban did stuff like that...
When the crime is as insane as "possession of a picture" (a digital one, no less), the defenses to the crime will sound somewhat nutty as well. It's to be expected. The only solution is to eradicate due process entirely and just execute the acccused immediately. Considering we're talking about kiddie porn here, i'm sure a vast majority of people wouldn't mind doing so at all.
You have him confused with the champagne. His name is Don. Go look on Amazon.com. Or do a google search for "don delillo"
The guy writes one of the best books of the past 50 years (called "Underworld") and they take the title (which they're allowed to do, of course) and make a friggin werewolf movie out of it. Oh well. I just hope too many literature snobs don't go see the movie expecting something it's not :)
I've always been of the opinion that advertising the price including the subtracted rebate amount is false advertising and a deceptive trade practice. The advertised price should be the price you have to pay to leave the store with the item without being arrested for theft. I realize they say "after $x mail-in rebate" but it's still deceptive in my opinion. It's like having a 365 day a year "sale" year after year. Advertising a false price (not what you pay when you go to the store to buy it is "false") is deceptive. They can advertise the "real" price and say "oh and you also get to take an additional $x off with a mail-in rebate" ... as long as the real price is the one in big, bold "look at our super-dooper price!" letters. In other words, the asterisk can say "plus mail in rebate!" but not "after mail in rebate."
Write your congressfucker to have your state's DTPA modified to cover this bullshit.
true -- if we get rid of spam, we most certainly all profit :)