A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
That sound you hear is Eisenhower turning over in his grave. Profiteering and bottom-line corporatism with no regard for the thousands of lives it destroys. That's what got us into this war, your vaunted military-industrial complex. Even the excuse Bush gave was weapons of mass destruction. Where did they come from, eh? Murdering thousands of innocent civilians so we can profit from selling weapons of war we made but don't even need to countries who will just use them against us. That's an all-American business plan if I ever heard one. Reagan praised as freedom fighters the same mujahideen that Osama bin Laden helped finance. Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. And you think this kind of behavior is good for national security, just because it saves a few bucks on fighter planes?
In the interest of national security, no company based outside the US should be given any US defense contracts. Period. I bet the Democrats could get that passed as a law.
If the company wants them to do something (i.e., use their knowledge and time), they have to pay for it. Likewise, if the company wants them not to do something (i.e., work for someone else), they should have to pay for it. I'd say, if you don't want me to work for someone else, give me a severance package that covers the exclusion period. For instance, ask for 6 months severance for a 12 month exclusion (half pay). Or argue that the non-compete is unreasonable. Or work for someone else.
What's a smart college bound kid going to do? Go into math and science when he's competing against people that will always work for a lot less than he wants to make, or go into law and become an ambulance chasing attorney?
He should do whatever he's passionate about and makes him happy. The American Dream is knowing that you can actually make a living doing it, if you just believe in yourself and work hard at it.
Microsoft promises the world during development, but by the time a product actually ships, its years late, hugely over budget, and still has only 10% of the features originally promised
Yeah, so this sounds exactly like something the federal government would be familiar with. Why change now?
The focus here is not on the attacker's conduct (which is already criminal), but on the conduct of the cameraman. The law should have been: 'It is illegal to record a crime for the purpose of personal gain, unless such record is promptly disclosed to appropriate law enforcement agencies.' This makes filming 'happy-slapping' a crime unless the cameraman rats out his friends. At the same time it protects journalists who document crime, including unexpected journalists like Holliday, even if they later benefit as a result of the recording.
The video would never be admitted into court as evidence, but it would be fresh in the minds of all the jurors and couldn't possibly be excluded from their minds.
This problem is one of the main purposes of screening jurors. Remember the Michael Jackson case? 'Everyone knows' he molests children, but the jury acquitted.
the government 'has no time to deal with spam, spyware, privacy, or net neutrality, but commits to legislation on behalf of the organizers of a sporting event'
Obviously. They don't understand any of those things (maybe privacy), but they do understand sports. Would you want them legislating things they don't understand?
The law is actually pretty interesting. I'm a former back-office heavy coder, who switched to tech law. It's really an eye opener coming from a hard science background. Most of the time in law, there are no right answers, because there are always at least two sides to every issue.
For all of you out there who think the law is easy or understandable, I like to make an analogy: you wouldn't think a lawyer could write good code, so why would you think a coder could represent himself in court? Even lawyers hire other lawyers for that. This guy proceeded pro se, which means he represented himself. It's a bad move, every time. Don't do it, you won't win. The best you'll do is come off looking like a fool, much like pulling someone off the street and telling them to code a linked list.
As for this case, I've got a few things to say. As it turns out, I'm taking a semester of First Amendment law right now. This case didn't really get into the meaty First Amendment issues at stake here. Google and Microsoft raised the defense that no one should be able to put words in their corporate mouths (and cited arguments made by the Supreme Court). The plaintiff didn't argue back, so he lost on that point. Pretty simple, really.
Going so far as to say Google Ads are "protected as free speech" is a gross oversimplification. At best, they're probably commercial speech, subject to the four-part test from Central Hudson Gas. Basically, the government can censor Google if the ads are illegal or misleading, and they probably don't need a 'compelling' purpose to censor, only a 'substantial' purpose. One of many reasons is that an ad for washing machines isn't as important as political debate, so it gets less protection.
Engineer discovers that there are pros and cons in deciding between two systems, but has to make a general value judgment. The world does not obey trichotomy, you know.
Here's some advice: pursue your dreams. Give them as much energy and dedication as you can. Just make sure they're what you really want.
I graduated from Caltech in 1998. Since them I have founded an internet start-up, closed it down, worked for myself, worked for others, done low-level coding and high-level meetings, found myself and lost myself again. Right now I'm about three months from graduating law school and heading off to a high-paying job in Boston, but I'm miserably single and praying there's someone out there for me. You have to find a balance between work and personal life, eventually. I'm lucky, because my firm is pretty strict about kicking people out at 5 pm. And I've got a bunch of friends in Boston who know people, and maybe I'll find someone who's right for me. The best advice I have is know what you want, and go for it. It may be a long road, but you will eventually get there.
In it, the plaintiffs lay out their disagreement with the judge's reasoning while taking time to point out that the fees awarded far exceed any damages they could have recovered should their suit have been successful.
Actually, there's something else going on here. If the amount they're paying their lawyers exceeds their possible recovery, then why are they suing in the first place? They'd have more money at the end of the day if they never sued at all. There is a decent argument that the lawsuits are vexatious litigation, brought to harass, not to be compensated for actual harm.
This situation starkly demonstrates the difference between ping times and bandwidth. The ping time may be 20 minutes, but two computers can still exchange data at high bandwidth. If Earth sends 1200 Mb in a one-second burst, and if Mars can receive that burst 20 minutes later, the effective bandwidth is 1200 Mb / 1200 seconds = 1 Mb/s. That's not too bad.
Here's a quick summary of the background, before diving into the arguments: A patent may only be granted for a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" or an improvement on one of these. 35 USC 101. The theory behind software patents is that it's not the ones and zeros that are patented, but the entire computer that contains the ones and zeros, because it produces a concrete, tangible result (the result of the computation). See State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group and Diamond v. Diehr. Also, for the theory of infringement, read 35 USC 271(f).
AT&T wrote some drivers for Vista, then told MSFT that they could use the drivers, but only in the US. MSFT burned Vista (including the AT&T drivers) onto a golden "master disk", which it sent overseas for duplication. AT&T sued, claiming breach of contract. The Federal Circuit agreed with AT&T, and MSFT appealed.
MSFT's position is that the software on the golden master is not actually patentable until it's combined with the rest of the computer. "It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device." They're arguing that the disk is just a (non-patented) component, and that once the data is copied onto the hard drive, that the hard drive is a component of the final, patented device.
AT&T's position is that it's the data on the disk that's patentable, and that is what MSFT licensed. They basically give up on source code patentability (it's not at issue in this case), and go after the object code that's on the disk. Their argument is that the object code is the 'blueprints' for making the patented device. They will give up the 'software is patentable' argument if the Court will give them the patent on the methods that the software implements.
The fact is, PJ put herself into the public spotlight voluntarily. Yeah she hides herself pretty well, but if she didn't want the attention, she should have shut down groklaw when she started making waves. She's made no bones about the fact she's anti-SCO. To say that she can bash SCO but others can't bash her for it, simply because you happen to agree with her, is hypocrisy of the highest order. Not to mention advocating censorship. The First Amendment goes both ways, you know. I happen to agree with her too, but I'm not going to deny Forbes (or anyone else for that matter) the ability to criticize, even vehemently, what she's doing.
Oh yeah, and calling the parent mod an idiot, and in the next breath accusing SCO of launching ad hominem attacks, is probably not the best way to make your point.
Most government services are funded through excise (purchase) taxes. Road maintenance is funded through user fees (the gas tax). National parks are funded through user fees (including fishing and camping permits). The patent office is funded through user fees. The national phone & electric services are funded through use taxes on your bill. Etc. The only real reason to tax the Internet is to pay for administering Internet services. But the Internet is largely run by private companies, not the government. What, exactly, would the Internet sales tax pay for? Lining politicians' pockets. There is no need to tax the Internet.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in every country."
- Herman Goering, Commander, Nazi Luftwaffe
Warren and Brandeis on privacy. Take 15 minutes and read this, I guarantee you will thank me. Try to remember as you're reading that it was written in 1890.
I agree. New York appears to be a pure comparative negligence state,* so the fact that the person was using some gadget will likely weigh against them during the damages phase of the trial. That should be enough incentive for them to regulate their own behavior. Strict liability here doesn't make any sense -- what's the harm that occurs/every time/ someone crosses the street checking their email? Most of the time, nothing happens. And as you say, if they're otherwise following the traffic regulations, they're not creating additional risk.
This is an example where the legislature has to look like they're doing something, so they pass laws as 'make-work'. People really should be more upset at this kind of behavior.
a national id, from a privacy point of view, grants no more exposure than that which is lost with a state id
No it doesn't. State ID information is limited to your state, national ID isn't. The fewer people who have your information, the more private it is. Besides, you're (supposedly) giving up your privacy to the state DMZ for the limited purpose of getting permission to drive on their roads. There's no such "bargain" with a national ID. And federal agencies are making a point to share information, combining it with credit information and who knows what else. Your State probably doesn't do that.
You're probably more secure under a national ID, but you certainly aren't more private.
The destruction of a domain that is of no use, is nothing to be upset about. But what happens when this motion is repeated on a larger scale when not everyone is in agreement?
The constitution isn't a living document. It means what it says, with the meaning that the orginal [sic] writers intended.
*sigh* Yet another rehash of the originalism versus living constitutionalism debate. For fourteen reasons why the world would be a worse place if your blanket statements were true, see here. Please try to remember, the world isn't black and white. Unlike math class, there is no one right answer.
Slashdot Mirror
For the benefit of the RIAA and MPAA, here's a picture of your typical filesharer.
In the interest of national security, no company based outside the US should be given any US defense contracts. Period. I bet the Democrats could get that passed as a law.
If the company wants them to do something (i.e., use their knowledge and time), they have to pay for it. Likewise, if the company wants them not to do something (i.e., work for someone else), they should have to pay for it. I'd say, if you don't want me to work for someone else, give me a severance package that covers the exclusion period. For instance, ask for 6 months severance for a 12 month exclusion (half pay). Or argue that the non-compete is unreasonable. Or work for someone else.
Discuss.
For all of you out there who think the law is easy or understandable, I like to make an analogy: you wouldn't think a lawyer could write good code, so why would you think a coder could represent himself in court? Even lawyers hire other lawyers for that. This guy proceeded pro se, which means he represented himself. It's a bad move, every time. Don't do it, you won't win. The best you'll do is come off looking like a fool, much like pulling someone off the street and telling them to code a linked list.
As for this case, I've got a few things to say. As it turns out, I'm taking a semester of First Amendment law right now. This case didn't really get into the meaty First Amendment issues at stake here. Google and Microsoft raised the defense that no one should be able to put words in their corporate mouths (and cited arguments made by the Supreme Court). The plaintiff didn't argue back, so he lost on that point. Pretty simple, really.
Going so far as to say Google Ads are "protected as free speech" is a gross oversimplification. At best, they're probably commercial speech, subject to the four-part test from Central Hudson Gas. Basically, the government can censor Google if the ads are illegal or misleading, and they probably don't need a 'compelling' purpose to censor, only a 'substantial' purpose. One of many reasons is that an ad for washing machines isn't as important as political debate, so it gets less protection.
Engineer discovers that there are pros and cons in deciding between two systems, but has to make a general value judgment. The world does not obey trichotomy, you know.
I graduated from Caltech in 1998. Since them I have founded an internet start-up, closed it down, worked for myself, worked for others, done low-level coding and high-level meetings, found myself and lost myself again. Right now I'm about three months from graduating law school and heading off to a high-paying job in Boston, but I'm miserably single and praying there's someone out there for me. You have to find a balance between work and personal life, eventually. I'm lucky, because my firm is pretty strict about kicking people out at 5 pm. And I've got a bunch of friends in Boston who know people, and maybe I'll find someone who's right for me. The best advice I have is know what you want, and go for it. It may be a long road, but you will eventually get there.
Actually, there's something else going on here. If the amount they're paying their lawyers exceeds their possible recovery, then why are they suing in the first place? They'd have more money at the end of the day if they never sued at all. There is a decent argument that the lawsuits are vexatious litigation, brought to harass, not to be compensated for actual harm.
This situation starkly demonstrates the difference between ping times and bandwidth. The ping time may be 20 minutes, but two computers can still exchange data at high bandwidth. If Earth sends 1200 Mb in a one-second burst, and if Mars can receive that burst 20 minutes later, the effective bandwidth is 1200 Mb / 1200 seconds = 1 Mb/s. That's not too bad.
AT&T wrote some drivers for Vista, then told MSFT that they could use the drivers, but only in the US. MSFT burned Vista (including the AT&T drivers) onto a golden "master disk", which it sent overseas for duplication. AT&T sued, claiming breach of contract. The Federal Circuit agreed with AT&T, and MSFT appealed.
MSFT's position is that the software on the golden master is not actually patentable until it's combined with the rest of the computer. "It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device." They're arguing that the disk is just a (non-patented) component, and that once the data is copied onto the hard drive, that the hard drive is a component of the final, patented device.
AT&T's position is that it's the data on the disk that's patentable, and that is what MSFT licensed. They basically give up on source code patentability (it's not at issue in this case), and go after the object code that's on the disk. Their argument is that the object code is the 'blueprints' for making the patented device. They will give up the 'software is patentable' argument if the Court will give them the patent on the methods that the software implements.
Oh yeah, and calling the parent mod an idiot, and in the next breath accusing SCO of launching ad hominem attacks, is probably not the best way to make your point.
Most government services are funded through excise (purchase) taxes. Road maintenance is funded through user fees (the gas tax). National parks are funded through user fees (including fishing and camping permits). The patent office is funded through user fees. The national phone & electric services are funded through use taxes on your bill. Etc. The only real reason to tax the Internet is to pay for administering Internet services. But the Internet is largely run by private companies, not the government. What, exactly, would the Internet sales tax pay for? Lining politicians' pockets. There is no need to tax the Internet.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in every country."
- Herman Goering, Commander, Nazi Luftwaffe
Warren and Brandeis on privacy. Take 15 minutes and read this, I guarantee you will thank me. Try to remember as you're reading that it was written in 1890.
This is an example where the legislature has to look like they're doing something, so they pass laws as 'make-work'. People really should be more upset at this kind of behavior.
* N.Y. C.P.L.R. 1411.
You're probably more secure under a national ID, but you certainly aren't more private.