We've seen this several times along the campaign trail this year, and we're likely to see it several more. Try interrupting a candidate by yelling anything while he's trying to speak, and you're going to get thrown out of the venue.
See, the owners of the venue have the right to decide who gets to speak on their property, and to throw out the people they don't want there.
Loud speakers are regulated too. Tonight at midnight local time, go out to your car, open the windows, and turn up the radio as loud as it will go. Cops will be visiting you shortly for distrubing the piece. See, you need a license if you're going to speak so loudly such that your sound is going to travel beyond your property and/or personal area.
These are just outlandish comparisions that don't hold water...
Just like the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, June 30th is just another mile marker that'll cause people to think that the war is over, when really it won't be.
June 30 is not the day that US troops will walk out leaving the country alone, it's just the day that Paul Bremer gives his authority to Iraqis that the USA will hand pick and announce shortly.
Iraq still doesn't have a stable military or police force that's capable of stamping down warlords who declare themselves mayor of a town, and until that is established, there's no way legit government would be able to survive the challenges from such insurgents.
So, at least the frist attempt at forming a stable Iraqi government will happen on June 30th... but that still is a long way from America being out of there.
That radical would also be liable for the damage he caused to the non-paying farms... which means whereever he got the money for an airplane is about to become dried up.
Correct, this was a case where he was liable for zero.
This almost sounds like a situation the anti-anything-Monsanto-does forces dreamed up because if they won they would have created another source of "major brand of weedkiller ready" seed that would have zeroed out the worth of the Roundup Ready Canola product's patent instantly. If they lost, oh well, at least they financial damage to them is matched by Monsanto because they each had to pay their own legal fees.
Better yet, this situation made Monsanto file the lawsuit to protect their patent, making them look like agressive plantiffs when really they were just bated into a setup where they had to file...
This "they contaminated my crops" claim is purely for the benefit of the media; he knew that he was planting Monsanto canola.
It's a totally invalid defense against Monsanto's lawsuit. However, it'd be a very interesting claim to persue against the other farmers in the area who pay for Monsanto's patent license.
I'd like to see there be a ruling that says if you use genetically modified products that you have the responsiblity to preventing the seeds from leaving your property.
He should have gotten seeds from his property that didn't contain Monsanto's modification. The fact that he didn't means that he was poluted upon...
Yep... that seems like a perfectly logical lawsuit to me. Too bad the defendant didn't seem to have been smart enough to make that claim to drag the other farmers in the area into the lawsuit.
Somehow, I think the environmentalist interests are lined up on the wrong side of this football.
The should have been against this ruling. Effectively, this allows the marketers of genetically modified plants to not place any limits on where the seeds containing their genes go. If they naturally blow into another farmers farm and "infect" their crops, then future generations of their crops will by evolution inherit the modification.
Instead, they seem to be supporting the farmer on the "anything that costs Monsanto profits is good for us" strategy. That's just not right sometimes... any financial loss for Monsanto might slow down their research, but it's certainly not enough to stop the company. The goal should be smart regulation, not elimination...
This really does seem to me to be a sticky issue...
It's impossible for a farmer to build a barrier to stop unwanted seeds from falling in. That's why they have to rely on weed-killing products and such to kill off what they didn't plant. Of course, the most common weed-killing product being RoundUp, and this being something designed to allow the canola to be ready for the use of RoundUp, that solution just plain isn't gonna work.
On the other hand, patents exist to allow companies to profit from their innovations. If Monsanto's patented genes are allowed to escape into the wild, then their monopoly privledge is lost and there goes any reason to create such innovations.
If anything, the burden should be placed on the farmers using the licensed seeds to control their plants so that they don't endup allowing seeds to go "into the wild".
This problem is only going to get worse before it gets better. There's a worse case that hasn't been encountered yet. If the consumer marketplace ends up with genetically modified apples that aren't intentionally seedless, then who knows where those apple seeds might wind up. If that modification turns up to be dominant, then non-modified apple trees are going to have a fight with the force of evolution.
Credit Reporting services don't have any opinion about you. They don't judge you, they just keep track about facts about you which are reported by other credit-based companies you do business with. Basically, as an industry, credit-givers use this as a conversation point to share their experiences with colleagues so that they can know who is more likely to pay back loans and who is not.
What the various federal and state laws about such companies do is require them to provide individuals with reports about themselves upon request, and follow a specific despute resolution process should you ever claim that something they are reporting about you is inaccurate.
You most defnitely have the right to block what they're sending.
The problem is with over SpamCOP's public claim that Richter sends e-mails to people who have never opted-in.
Richter claims that any recipient claiming that they never opted-in is wrong. He'd refute SpamCOP's claim, but SpamCOP refuses to turn over the e-mail addresses of the people complaining to them, so he can't check his records to find out how the address got there.
You most definitely have a right to publish an opinion, but when you accuse somebody of something, it turns into a matter of fact. If you're publishing facts that aren't true, that's where libel starts...
I think we've covered before that's not the way CAN-SPAM requires them to operate an opt-out system...
You have to do exactly what everybody tells you not to do, follow the instructions at the bottom at the bottom of the e-mail.
True, most of the non-ethical spammers will just target you for more spam if you respond in that way, but CAN-SPAM requires a law-compliant spammer to honor that system, and Richter claims that's how his company works.
Lawyers for both sides said they have agreed to allow the debate because they believe it will not focus on the lawsuit.
Uhm... two guys suing each other in public and they're not going to talk about the legal alligations either has leveled about the other? Sounds like some lawyers won't be members of the Bar Association much longer.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the referee stops this fight early. I'm expecting both of them to fight dirty... Julian Haight tries hard but often swings first and aims later, while Scott Richter says he plays by the rules but morals have never really stood in his way.
There's no way they're gonna go the scheduled twelve rounds!
Man, that just ruined my whole day...not really, the pics were still cool. Why would anyone really care that someone thousands of miles away from them kinda lied?
We cared more that Slashdot presented it as fact when it really was fiction.
Slashdot: Fiction for nerds, stuff that doesn't matter... just doesn't have the same ring to it.
I can see "Shizzle" going into the tech term dictionary in the same way SimCity 2000 introduced the term "Reticulating Splines".
Those might be two real words, but they're absoutely meaningless when used together. In reality, when any of the Sim* games show that phrase, they just mean "Please Wait..." because they're doing various tasks that they don't want to explain to the users.
The most common problem in Internet Explorer these days is when a user gets pushed a "Toolbar" that they didn't want, and then it starts messing with things.
I think IE took this feature out, because calling a site "http://1109654167/" was an address scheme that nobody in their right mind was using, except for spammers and other undesirables who were trying to run around blockers based on hostnames and IP addresses.
Afterall, dotted-quad is good enough to reach a site by IP address... so other ways to express an IP are just redundant.
Sony wants to own sony.org so that no not-for-profit group can spring up and name themselves Sony... because the Sony company wants to own that four letter combination outright. They're scared of a non-profit cause springing up at that domain.
Amazon.com I bet is wishing they had grabbed Amazon.org back in the early days. Not that the Amazon.org group is unacceptable to a large number of people, but I'm sure you can find a few people who are offended by them... and that soils the "Amazon" word on the Internet. You get the idea, anything that can cost sales is something a business doesn't want to see happen.
I agree....biz is a redundant domain to.com. and in a conflict-free world.biz would end up matching.com exactly.
Really, the only use I see in.biz is for a "split the baby" settlement to double-registration situations, where both have a legit right to the trademark in different contexts, where one takes.com and one takes.biz.
Slashdot Mirror
We've seen this several times along the campaign trail this year, and we're likely to see it several more. Try interrupting a candidate by yelling anything while he's trying to speak, and you're going to get thrown out of the venue.
See, the owners of the venue have the right to decide who gets to speak on their property, and to throw out the people they don't want there.
These guys just don't get it.
Loud speakers are regulated too. Tonight at midnight local time, go out to your car, open the windows, and turn up the radio as loud as it will go. Cops will be visiting you shortly for distrubing the piece. See, you need a license if you're going to speak so loudly such that your sound is going to travel beyond your property and/or personal area.
These are just outlandish comparisions that don't hold water...
Just like the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, June 30th is just another mile marker that'll cause people to think that the war is over, when really it won't be.
June 30 is not the day that US troops will walk out leaving the country alone, it's just the day that Paul Bremer gives his authority to Iraqis that the USA will hand pick and announce shortly.
Iraq still doesn't have a stable military or police force that's capable of stamping down warlords who declare themselves mayor of a town, and until that is established, there's no way legit government would be able to survive the challenges from such insurgents.
So, at least the frist attempt at forming a stable Iraqi government will happen on June 30th... but that still is a long way from America being out of there.
That radical would also be liable for the damage he caused to the non-paying farms... which means whereever he got the money for an airplane is about to become dried up.
Correct, this was a case where he was liable for zero.
This almost sounds like a situation the anti-anything-Monsanto-does forces dreamed up because if they won they would have created another source of "major brand of weedkiller ready" seed that would have zeroed out the worth of the Roundup Ready Canola product's patent instantly. If they lost, oh well, at least they financial damage to them is matched by Monsanto because they each had to pay their own legal fees.
Better yet, this situation made Monsanto file the lawsuit to protect their patent, making them look like agressive plantiffs when really they were just bated into a setup where they had to file...
No... but the point is that he couldn't have made the transgression of planting the modified canola if he didn't have any.
Somebody minded in preventing the spread of genetic modifications should have asked just how in the world that was allowed to happen.
This "they contaminated my crops" claim is purely for the benefit of the media; he knew that he was planting Monsanto canola.
It's a totally invalid defense against Monsanto's lawsuit. However, it'd be a very interesting claim to persue against the other farmers in the area who pay for Monsanto's patent license.
I'd like to see there be a ruling that says if you use genetically modified products that you have the responsiblity to preventing the seeds from leaving your property.
He should have gotten seeds from his property that didn't contain Monsanto's modification. The fact that he didn't means that he was poluted upon...
Yep... that seems like a perfectly logical lawsuit to me. Too bad the defendant didn't seem to have been smart enough to make that claim to drag the other farmers in the area into the lawsuit.
Somehow, I think the environmentalist interests are lined up on the wrong side of this football.
The should have been against this ruling. Effectively, this allows the marketers of genetically modified plants to not place any limits on where the seeds containing their genes go. If they naturally blow into another farmers farm and "infect" their crops, then future generations of their crops will by evolution inherit the modification.
Instead, they seem to be supporting the farmer on the "anything that costs Monsanto profits is good for us" strategy. That's just not right sometimes... any financial loss for Monsanto might slow down their research, but it's certainly not enough to stop the company. The goal should be smart regulation, not elimination...
This really does seem to me to be a sticky issue...
It's impossible for a farmer to build a barrier to stop unwanted seeds from falling in. That's why they have to rely on weed-killing products and such to kill off what they didn't plant. Of course, the most common weed-killing product being RoundUp, and this being something designed to allow the canola to be ready for the use of RoundUp, that solution just plain isn't gonna work.
On the other hand, patents exist to allow companies to profit from their innovations. If Monsanto's patented genes are allowed to escape into the wild, then their monopoly privledge is lost and there goes any reason to create such innovations.
If anything, the burden should be placed on the farmers using the licensed seeds to control their plants so that they don't endup allowing seeds to go "into the wild".
This problem is only going to get worse before it gets better. There's a worse case that hasn't been encountered yet. If the consumer marketplace ends up with genetically modified apples that aren't intentionally seedless, then who knows where those apple seeds might wind up. If that modification turns up to be dominant, then non-modified apple trees are going to have a fight with the force of evolution.
Which is why you should check your credit reports before getting any major loans, such as a car loan.
Credit Reporting services don't have any opinion about you. They don't judge you, they just keep track about facts about you which are reported by other credit-based companies you do business with. Basically, as an industry, credit-givers use this as a conversation point to share their experiences with colleagues so that they can know who is more likely to pay back loans and who is not.
What the various federal and state laws about such companies do is require them to provide individuals with reports about themselves upon request, and follow a specific despute resolution process should you ever claim that something they are reporting about you is inaccurate.
You most defnitely have the right to block what they're sending.
The problem is with over SpamCOP's public claim that Richter sends e-mails to people who have never opted-in.
Richter claims that any recipient claiming that they never opted-in is wrong. He'd refute SpamCOP's claim, but SpamCOP refuses to turn over the e-mail addresses of the people complaining to them, so he can't check his records to find out how the address got there.
You most definitely have a right to publish an opinion, but when you accuse somebody of something, it turns into a matter of fact. If you're publishing facts that aren't true, that's where libel starts...
Both sides were already served... the lawsuits are much further along than that.
I think we've covered before that's not the way CAN-SPAM requires them to operate an opt-out system...
You have to do exactly what everybody tells you not to do, follow the instructions at the bottom at the bottom of the e-mail.
True, most of the non-ethical spammers will just target you for more spam if you respond in that way, but CAN-SPAM requires a law-compliant spammer to honor that system, and Richter claims that's how his company works.
Lawyers for both sides said they have agreed to allow the debate because they believe it will not focus on the lawsuit.
Uhm... two guys suing each other in public and they're not going to talk about the legal alligations either has leveled about the other? Sounds like some lawyers won't be members of the Bar Association much longer.
Sounds like it's going to be a real nasty fight.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the referee stops this fight early. I'm expecting both of them to fight dirty... Julian Haight tries hard but often swings first and aims later, while Scott Richter says he plays by the rules but morals have never really stood in his way.
There's no way they're gonna go the scheduled twelve rounds!
Man, that just ruined my whole day...not really, the pics were still cool. Why would anyone really care that someone thousands of miles away from them kinda lied?
We cared more that Slashdot presented it as fact when it really was fiction.
Slashdot: Fiction for nerds, stuff that doesn't matter... just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Right, so moving the proper way to contact your congressman to one click, One Click Campaign Contributions, is only something Amazon can do.
PayPal's restoration of Freenet doesn't help at all. It's hard to unring that bell, and Freenet now doesn't want to deal with them anyway.
PayPal wanted to break their association with Freenet, and they just got what they wanted.
I can see "Shizzle" going into the tech term dictionary in the same way SimCity 2000 introduced the term "Reticulating Splines".
Those might be two real words, but they're absoutely meaningless when used together. In reality, when any of the Sim* games show that phrase, they just mean "Please Wait..." because they're doing various tasks that they don't want to explain to the users.
The most common problem in Internet Explorer these days is when a user gets pushed a "Toolbar" that they didn't want, and then it starts messing with things.
Let's hope FireFox doesn't go down that path.
I think IE took this feature out, because calling a site "http://1109654167/" was an address scheme that nobody in their right mind was using, except for spammers and other undesirables who were trying to run around blockers based on hostnames and IP addresses.
Afterall, dotted-quad is good enough to reach a site by IP address... so other ways to express an IP are just redundant.
Sony wants to own sony.org so that no not-for-profit group can spring up and name themselves Sony... because the Sony company wants to own that four letter combination outright. They're scared of a non-profit cause springing up at that domain.
Amazon.com I bet is wishing they had grabbed Amazon.org back in the early days. Not that the Amazon.org group is unacceptable to a large number of people, but I'm sure you can find a few people who are offended by them... and that soils the "Amazon" word on the Internet. You get the idea, anything that can cost sales is something a business doesn't want to see happen.
I agree... .biz is a redundant domain to .com. and in a conflict-free world .biz would end up matching .com exactly.
.biz is for a "split the baby" settlement to double-registration situations, where both have a legit right to the trademark in different contexts, where one takes .com and one takes .biz.
Really, the only use I see in