GF didn't have the technology. The Royalists in anticipation of the Civil Wars due in 40 years denied his access to the Da Vinci aircraft.
His co-conspirators did manage to off King James...Catesby (sp?) I believe was the originator of the plot. An early Roman attack on the Protestants (something still going on, but at a low simmer, in Ireland).
But, there ARE fireworks! That is the only common thread between GFD and 4 July.
Guy Fawlkes' day is more analogous to December 7, 1941 ("a date that will live in infamy"), the day that the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor, HI.
My given name is George and an old headmaster of mine was keen on references to the dissimilarity between St. George's day and any day he had to deal with me.
That case was a major Title IX (Bosley v. Kerney R-1 904 F. Supp. 1006(WDMo 1995)), the first student-on-student sexual harassment case tried before a jury. We had a 60 + headnote F.Supp decision published and then 16 months later the Court granted a JAML. That JAML was not published until AFTER the 8th Cir ruling came down. So there are two Bosley v. Kearney R1 F.Supp decisions published 3 years apart. The JAML decision states that the first published opinion was published as a "computer error".
I was more than capable of producing a hyperlinked brief, but this was 8 years ago. I created a Folio database of every relevant case and all pleadings . . . but the trial transcript was not in electronic form and I know that I couldn't have scanned that many documents / OCR'd them / checked them for errors and then made some motion for their use and still have written the brief! There were only three attorneys on the plaintiff's case and I was the sole author of the brief. No big bucks for advanced technology were available.
It is interesting that when the 8th ruled that the JAML was proper and upheld the underlying decision, because the JAML decision had not been published the Sheppard's reports continued to show the first Bosley as good law!
The SCT had consolidated 5th Cir & 9th Cir cases that were later in time than Bosley and found for the plaintiffs' where the harassment was sufficiently pervasive to interfere with the free appropriate public education guaranteed the victim (my argument before the 8th). The SCT opinion, citing Bosley's first F.Supp decision, came down about two months after we lost in the 8th and before the second F.Supp decision was published. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.
This is hardware. Toasting circuits (darn things are so fragile) is not copyright infringement.
The anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA are supposed to prevent reverse engineering or other compromise of the underlying IP. How does this apply to an end purchaser of a consumer good?
Nichole Miller may copyright her ties and I may wear them, but the RFID device has nothing to do with protecting her copyright - at best it is an inventory control device and can be disabled as easily as those "do not remove" tags that come on every pillow / comforter in the US.
If Bill Gates' new biography (in paperback, for the non-digerati) comes with an RFID device, does that stop me from scanning my copy? Or, burning it?
Come on folks, the DMCA is a pain, but it doesn't apply in this case.
Just so long as the 9th Circuit doesn't grant a rehearing en banc, this is a "binding precident" in the 9th Circuit.
If the 9th does hear the case en banc (meaning at least 11 judges) and they uphold the decision then it is still binding precident in the 9th circuit.
If the U.S. Supreme Court takes cert. on the case (which can happen if one of the parties petitions for a rehearing en banc and it is denied or they lose the rehearing and still have money to spend and petition the Supremes for Cert. and they grant cert.) and the Supremes uphold the fair use holding, THEN IT IS BINDING PRECIDENT IN EVERY CIRCUIT IN THE U.S.
Only about as costly as a small war....
In my last major appeal in the 8th Circuit the quoted cost was $30k for the trial transcript (from a 1 week long trial). The 8th Cir. granted IFP status to my client and we got a copy of the transcript free, but still had to copy, number and bind a copy for each judge and the opposing side (still about $3k at Kinkos (tm)).
I listed all of the legal means to change the current government. A constitutional convention, recall and impeachment are all alternatives to a general election for radical change of the government.
It is legal to "plot" to overthrow the government - the Clinton impeachment - is a fine example of "plotting" to overthrow the government. Legal work product of both sides various counsel is private and should remain so. There was no crime committed in the impeachment *save for the waste of $$*.
You are exacty correct in your analysis that plotting to overthrow the government, by means that are illegal, is terrorism and treason. The Founding fathers were all terrorists. Should we capitulate to the Brits at this late date?
A few radical folks decided that King George III had to go. That was treason and some of them were hanged (Nathan Hale).
At the time that the radicals decided that British rule had to go, all those radicals had to do was step out behind the barn and look around to see if they were being overheard by the King's forces. That would be impossible under this proposal.
There is a well established legal right to engage in this kind of discourse - but this proposal eliminates (chills) the right of the people to peacably assemble (even if they want to plot the overthrow of the current government - perhaps by ballot / constitutional convention / impeachment / or just running Ralph Nader again). US. Const. 1st Amend.
As a lawyer who has had at least one NAFTA case with that nasty neighbor to the north (oh! Canada), and with the proviso that the last German language course I took was 1976, the abstract translation seems to be accurate. I will to try to read this in much more detail (with my German reference texts) and I'll probably send a request off through Lawprof (tm) to see if an English translation exists.
The upshot is that the GATT, NAFTA, WTO, Berne Convention treaties and EU / German substantive law and US statutory and common law will all play a roll in how the license(s) is (are) applied and interpreted. This document is a preliminary examination by a legal scholar of the emerging field and it should prove quite helpful simply by analogizing existing precedent with the intent of the GPL / Open Source concept.
From a legal standpoint, this is the same as asking a lawyer from the 1700's what laws apply to aircraft. We are just finding out that there are Aircraft!
Open Source is a radical idea - nobody and everybody (who contributes) owns much but the right to expand the existing public code. "Owning" things is what law is all about and a collaborative effort without a clear owner (legally speaking) is a real problem where someone might claim open code as their property (I don't know if the SCO / IBM / Linus T issues have reached the point yet, but It appears certain that the resolution will turn on who created what and when...)
Against the law? Sen. Hatch is head of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. He places the judges on the bench in the Federal system and he is on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court (the CJ and Sandra O'Connor are said to be retiring at the end of this term - a week to go). Justice Hatch isn't going to have a problem with computer bombs.
What next, repatriation of the slaves? It can't be much further to the right than giving record companies the right to blow up people's computers.
You have been quite reasonable in this discourse. I detect no rants.
What kind of personalities do we want to keep limited in a jury pool? Well, I gave it away when I said I wouldn't want me on my jury. I doubt that you would want you...
Hung juries and long periods of jury repose are what we want to avoid (and we would like to win, too). If a jury has two or more strong personality types the jury could be split or whipsawed by these two playing off each other. Also, where a jury has a number of strong personality types the possibility that the jury will become hostile towards all of the parties and the judge is viewed as quite probbable. The view towards law enforcement types on a jury is that the "enforcement" or command skills experience of the officer will sway the jury. Also, it is widely regarded that criminal law experience leaves the officer with a cautious or questioning view of their fellow man (and that can cut either way in a civil trial: strong rules=plaintiff's verdict / plaintiff is trying to put one over on us=defense verdict) as well as a strong dislike for people beating the system.
Cause changes with each trial, but generally it is where the party struck has personal relations with a party (or counsel to a party) or where the party seeking the strike for cause can show that the juror has a financial interest in the outcome.
Money is not motivation - money is just about the only thing that a jury can award.
Nobody can replace a human.
Money can (and does) replace money just fine. But a jury is not a judge (appointed to the bench by some politician). A jury does not have a financial interest in the outcome. A jury serves as a check on the judge and attorneys.
Show me a major company that waives a jury trial against another major company - it doesn't happen.
Finally, a jury isn't selected: jurors are eliminated and what is left of the panel after the challenges for cause (unlimited) and preemptory strikes (usually only 6) are over is the jury.
If you have been struck for cause then you were struck for a good reason. If you were removed with a preemptory strike each time, then you really have something strong about your personality that makes you a less-than-optimum juror. From what you have said, Iâ(TM)d hazard a guess that you have been struck for cause every time because of your law enforcement background.
Very few states require doctors to serve on juries and fewer still require lawyers to serve. I doubt that there is a good reason for the latter and I can make a good argument for a doctor to serve, but Iâ(TM)d never allow me on my jury. . .
What is rightful tort reform? How about the simple view that a jury ought to be the arbiter of the dispute?
If juries are good enough to decide who lives and who dies (the various US Death Penalties at state & federal jurisdiction) then they are damn well good enough to decide who has to pay.
No physician decides who lives and who dies â" s/he has the duty to try their best to limit pain and damage.
Tort reform is all about denying access to a jury trial.
FWIW I am a trial lawyer with a physician mother, brother and lawyer father and brother-in-law.
Span is a felony by any state's laws (save La). If you steal $1000.00 it is "grand theft". If the theft is only the costs of conection spent retrieving spam from the serer, after a 10 or 20 meg spam campaign @ $0.001 / per receipant cost, the spammer has still stolen access in an amount in excess of $1,000.00 - s/he has just done it to millions of people. Still, it is stealing by deceit.
A crime anywhere. If your local kids each steal a brick from your drive, sooner or later you don't have any bricks left.
This is codified common law (arising from pickpocketing) and it was more than 1000 years old when it was passed on to the British common law colonies....
NO, the idea is to hold those thieves accountable.
All SPAM is postage-due junk mail.
Every second I spend tweaking filters and every minute I spend reviewing the trash (to make certain that something of value (non-spam) hasn't been trashed by aggressive filtering)
steals from me the one thing I cannot replace: time.
Each spammer is legally liable for his/her actions and they should be tried. They can spend their time and money trying to defend illegal acts and then they can work at a legal job to pay restitution to each (and every) spam victim.
This is a class action from the word go.
Structured remedies are called for - how about:
No further Internet acccess for spammers (sort of the DUI response to bad surfing / emailing); and,
Identification of the solicitating companies along with vicarious liabilty for each of them (hire a spammer and get life without Internet access for you and your business); and,
Post their pictures (the Nuremburg-of-spammers site)- see to it that they have to tell their friends, family and the public what they did -- make them wear a scarlet S tattooed on their cheeks!
WHOIS shows nothing about the defib site save for the hosting company. Once a slimeball. ..
Slashdot Mirror
GF didn't have the technology. The Royalists in anticipation of the Civil Wars due in 40 years denied his access to the Da Vinci aircraft.
His co-conspirators did manage to off King James...Catesby (sp?) I believe was the originator of the plot. An early Roman attack on the Protestants (something still going on, but at a low simmer, in Ireland).
But, there ARE fireworks! That is the only common thread between GFD and 4 July.
Guy Fawlkes' day is more analogous to December 7, 1941 ("a date that will live in infamy"), the day that the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor, HI.
My given name is George and an old headmaster of mine was keen on references to the dissimilarity between St. George's day and any day he had to deal with me.
That case was a major Title IX (Bosley v. Kerney R-1 904 F. Supp. 1006(WDMo 1995)), the first student-on-student sexual harassment case tried before a jury. We had a 60 + headnote F.Supp decision published and then 16 months later the Court granted a JAML. That JAML was not published until AFTER the 8th Cir ruling came down. So there are two Bosley v. Kearney R1 F.Supp decisions published 3 years apart. The JAML decision states that the first published opinion was published as a "computer error".
I was more than capable of producing a hyperlinked brief, but this was 8 years ago. I created a Folio database of every relevant case and all pleadings . . . but the trial transcript was not in electronic form and I know that I couldn't have scanned that many documents / OCR'd them / checked them for errors and then made some motion for their use and still have written the brief! There were only three attorneys on the plaintiff's case and I was the sole author of the brief. No big bucks for advanced technology were available.
It is interesting that when the 8th ruled that the JAML was proper and upheld the underlying decision, because the JAML decision had not been published the Sheppard's reports continued to show the first Bosley as good law!
The SCT had consolidated 5th Cir & 9th Cir cases that were later in time than Bosley and found for the plaintiffs' where the harassment was sufficiently pervasive to interfere with the free appropriate public education guaranteed the victim (my argument before the 8th). The SCT opinion, citing Bosley's first F.Supp decision, came down about two months after we lost in the 8th and before the second F.Supp decision was published. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.
This is hardware. Toasting circuits (darn things are so fragile) is not copyright infringement.
The anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA are supposed to prevent reverse engineering or other compromise of the underlying IP. How does this apply to an end purchaser of a consumer good?
Nichole Miller may copyright her ties and I may wear them, but the RFID device has nothing to do with protecting her copyright - at best it is an inventory control device and can be disabled as easily as those "do not remove" tags that come on every pillow / comforter in the US.
If Bill Gates' new biography (in paperback, for the non-digerati) comes with an RFID device, does that stop me from scanning my copy? Or, burning it?
Come on folks, the DMCA is a pain, but it doesn't apply in this case.
Just so long as the 9th Circuit doesn't grant a rehearing en banc, this is a "binding precident" in the 9th Circuit.
If the 9th does hear the case en banc (meaning at least 11 judges) and they uphold the decision then it is still binding precident in the 9th circuit.
If the U.S. Supreme Court takes cert. on the case (which can happen if one of the parties petitions for a rehearing en banc and it is denied or they lose the rehearing and still have money to spend and petition the Supremes for Cert. and they grant cert.) and the Supremes uphold the fair use holding, THEN IT IS BINDING PRECIDENT IN EVERY CIRCUIT IN THE U.S.
Only about as costly as a small war....
In my last major appeal in the 8th Circuit the quoted cost was $30k for the trial transcript (from a 1 week long trial). The 8th Cir. granted IFP status to my client and we got a copy of the transcript free, but still had to copy, number and bind a copy for each judge and the opposing side (still about $3k at Kinkos (tm)).
Let's consider the loss of the 4th of July holiday....
;-(
Guy Fawkes day isn't till November 5...
I listed all of the legal means to change the current government. A constitutional convention, recall and impeachment are all alternatives to a general election for radical change of the government.
It is legal to "plot" to overthrow the government - the Clinton impeachment - is a fine example of "plotting" to overthrow the government. Legal work product of both sides various counsel is private and should remain so. There was no crime committed in the impeachment *save for the waste of $$*.
You are exacty correct in your analysis that plotting to overthrow the government, by means that are illegal, is terrorism and treason. The Founding fathers were all terrorists. Should we capitulate to the Brits at this late date?
A few radical folks decided that King George III had to go. That was treason and some of them were hanged (Nathan Hale).
At the time that the radicals decided that British rule had to go, all those radicals had to do was step out behind the barn and look around to see if they were being overheard by the King's forces. That would be impossible under this proposal.
There is a well established legal right to engage in this kind of discourse - but this proposal eliminates (chills) the right of the people to peacably assemble (even if they want to plot the overthrow of the current government - perhaps by ballot / constitutional convention / impeachment / or just running Ralph Nader again). US. Const. 1st Amend.
As a lawyer who has had at least one NAFTA case with that nasty neighbor to the north (oh! Canada), and with the proviso that the last German language course I took was 1976, the abstract translation seems to be accurate. I will to try to read this in much more detail (with my German reference texts) and I'll probably send a request off through Lawprof (tm) to see if an English translation exists.
The upshot is that the GATT, NAFTA, WTO, Berne Convention treaties and EU / German substantive law and US statutory and common law will all play a roll in how the license(s) is (are) applied and interpreted. This document is a preliminary examination by a legal scholar of the emerging field and it should prove quite helpful simply by analogizing existing precedent with the intent of the GPL / Open Source concept.
From a legal standpoint, this is the same as asking a lawyer from the 1700's what laws apply to aircraft. We are just finding out that there are Aircraft!
Open Source is a radical idea - nobody and everybody (who contributes) owns much but the right to expand the existing public code. "Owning" things is what law is all about and a collaborative effort without a clear owner (legally speaking) is a real problem where someone might claim open code as their property (I don't know if the SCO / IBM / Linus T issues have reached the point yet, but It appears certain that the resolution will turn on who created what and when...)
Against the law?
Sen. Hatch is head of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate.
He places the judges on the bench in the Federal system and he is on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court (the CJ and Sandra O'Connor are said to be retiring at the end of this term - a week to go).
Justice Hatch isn't going to have a problem with computer bombs.
What next, repatriation of the slaves? It can't be much further to the right than giving record companies the right to blow up people's computers.
You have been quite reasonable in this discourse. I detect no rants.
What kind of personalities do we want to keep limited in a jury pool? Well, I gave it away when I said I wouldn't want me on my jury. I doubt that you would want you...
Hung juries and long periods of jury repose are what we want to avoid (and we would like to win, too). If a jury has two or more strong personality types the jury could be split or whipsawed by these two playing off each other. Also, where a jury has a number of strong personality types the possibility that the jury will become hostile towards all of the parties and the judge is viewed as quite probbable.
The view towards law enforcement types on a jury is that the "enforcement" or command skills experience of the officer will sway the jury. Also, it is widely regarded that criminal law experience leaves the officer with a cautious or questioning view of their fellow man (and that can cut either way in a civil trial: strong rules=plaintiff's verdict / plaintiff is trying to put one over on us=defense verdict) as well as a strong dislike for people beating the system.
Cause changes with each trial, but generally it is where the party struck has personal relations with a party (or counsel to a party) or where the party seeking the strike for cause can show that the juror has a financial interest in the outcome.
Money is not motivation - money is just about the only thing that a jury can award.
Nobody can replace a human.
Money can (and does) replace money just fine. But a jury is not a judge (appointed to the bench by some politician). A jury does not have a financial interest in the outcome. A jury serves as a check on the judge and attorneys.
Show me a major company that waives a jury trial against another major company - it doesn't happen.
Finally, a jury isn't selected: jurors are eliminated and what is left of the panel after the challenges for cause (unlimited) and preemptory strikes (usually only 6) are over is the jury.
If you have been struck for cause then you were struck for a good reason. If you were removed with a preemptory strike each time, then you really have something strong about your personality that makes you a less-than-optimum juror.
From what you have said, Iâ(TM)d hazard a guess that you have been struck for cause every time because of your law enforcement background.
Very few states require doctors to serve on juries and fewer still require lawyers to serve. I doubt that there is a good reason for the latter and I can make a good argument for a doctor to serve, but Iâ(TM)d never allow me on my jury. . .
What is rightful tort reform? How about the simple view that a jury ought to be the arbiter of the dispute? If juries are good enough to decide who lives and who dies (the various US Death Penalties at state & federal jurisdiction) then they are damn well good enough to decide who has to pay. No physician decides who lives and who dies â" s/he has the duty to try their best to limit pain and damage. Tort reform is all about denying access to a jury trial. FWIW I am a trial lawyer with a physician mother, brother and lawyer father and brother-in-law.
'Soapy-Sam' Brownback looks out for just one constituent - himself. This bill pays Sam. Period.
Span is a felony by any state's laws (save La). If you steal $1000.00 it is "grand theft". If the theft is only the costs of conection spent retrieving spam from the serer, after a 10 or 20 meg spam campaign @ $0.001 / per receipant cost, the spammer has still stolen access in an amount in excess of $1,000.00 - s/he has just done it to millions of people. Still, it is stealing by deceit. A crime anywhere. If your local kids each steal a brick from your drive, sooner or later you don't have any bricks left. This is codified common law (arising from pickpocketing) and it was more than 1000 years old when it was passed on to the British common law colonies....
All SPAM is postage-due junk mail.