I know. But I didn't want to cite smoking mainly because I thought it was a poor example for the point I was trying to make about honoring one's word.
The Tobacco situation I see a bit differently. "Younger smokers" (a term that is wide open to interpretation I know) in particular, really should known better than to think smoking won't harm them - with the warning label, no less. For this group, suing the industry on the basis of "I didn't know" is usually just a bunch of ignorant/irresonsible crap.
"Older smokers" OTOH are a more complicated situation, IMO, because of the proven campiagn of deception that the smoking industry engaged in for many years, along with the government handing them out to soldiers during WWII (there may have been others, I don't know).
Still, even then, many of the "Dough Boys" knew better and referred to cigarettes as "coffin nails."
When Southwest posts a privacy policy they should be bound by it. Saying that they don't have to bound to what they said in (virtual) writing because people didnt actually read the policy does not excuse Northwest, or others, from their obligations.
By this logic we could say that parents who have children born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome can sue all of the beer companies because "no one reads those warning labels by the Surgeon General/Government anyway."
Working to discover what security flaws exist in any given program, series of prgrams, Operating Systems, hardware, etc is not the real issue in my opinion: it is the idea of working to design a system that is as stable, flexible/adaptable, transparent, and clear as possible while at the same time providing a foundation that allows room for future growth. To really execute all of these concepts well can be a truly daunting task, IMO, given the often limited salaries/wages, time and other constraints (e.g. management) that progammers in particular have to face. This is just one of the reasons programs/kernels/systems, etc go through so many revisions.
I know the article doesnt imply this at all but the solution to security and stability problems does not lie in simply sticiking our collective heads in the sand. We have to answer the who/what/when/where/why elements of design. Building a better mousetrap involves many elements, as I alluded to above.
FWIW, most College's and Universities have agreements with Microsoft where enrolled students can purchse Office xp/2k3 and Windows xp for $20.00 per copy.
This scheme is undoubtedly used to get new users hooked; but it is, IMO, a common practice at many schools and higher-ed instituions.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but wanted to let you know that as a college student, price would not be the main reason to keep me away from windows (for the reason stated above).
If you RTFA, as you say, you would notice that there was a fair amount of analysis there. one of the most telling bits I saw was the following, which I did not need to take with a large grain of sodium:
"Microsoft declined to comment on the open-source challenge, but CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a recent strategy memo to employees that was leaked on the Internet: "Noncommercial software products in general, and Linux in particular, present a competitive challenge for us and for our entire industry, and they require our concentrated focus and attention. . . . In this environment of lean budgets and concerns about Microsoft's attention to customers, noncommercial software such as Linux and OpenOffice is seen as an interesting, 'good enough' or 'free' alternative."
That sounded like a sound analysis to me, in terms of what is causing erosion of MS market share (besides piracy, but that has been and always will be a constant force in any software that is not completely free).
"Sorry, I figured since about two dozen posts had already cited the text of the case and the decision, it would be modded down as redundant to do so yet again. Look for a moment; you'll find it."
I think you may be a bit to concerned with deep nested comment moderation, but fine, because legal matters are important to me, I looked. Here is one:
1) http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
A slashdot poster said:
Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit". (Source: NCAUSA. Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?
Here is a link from where the above argument was made: http://www.ncausa.org/public/pages/index.cf m?pagei d=71)
I looked for more actual links or citations (not, "I saw somewhere" or "it has been said") that would support your argument, and found one. One poster modded to 5 claimed the health dept cited them for coffee that was too hot, but failed to provide actual proof.
Here was the one link I found from examining the the entire discussion flatnested at comment threshold zero, that provided a link that seems to support your argument: http://atlanet.org. The site does not allow deep linking. So, per a slashdot poster: "Go to the home page and follow the links to Consumer & Media Resources -> Factsheets & Resources -> Debunking Urban Legends About So-Called "Frivolous Lawsuits" and the Civil Justice System -> Click Here For the Truth About the McDonaild's Coffee Case."
Nothing in that page mentions a health dept. citation, though the point behind your agument of coffee being served too hot is summed up well there
"The point is... there must be a threshold temperature after which it is unsafe to serve "hot" coffee. It's ridiculous to claim that because coffee is "hot" that it cannot possibly be served too hot. Handing someone a liquid that can give third degree burns in nothing but a styrofoam cup with a plastic lid seems like a kinda bad idea to me, and not something that is part of my ordinary fast-food-coffee experience. You seem to think there's nothing wrong with it, though... so maybe, karmically, it's more likely to happen to you than to me. I can only hope!"
I did seee that I was one of many to support the idea that people should take care with their hot coffee, and that serving coffee at the recommended temperature of 180 degrees is a reasonable temperature. Judgine by your response (karmically speaking, as you put it), maybe we all deserve to get burned for suscribing to this point of view. However, wishing people bad luck is definately not good karma, my friend.
By that idea, we really should get rid of all hot water dispensers, since nearly all dispense it at just below boiling; that hot choclate could get us in our laps, too. Ever notice that you sip your hot choclate or hot coffee? It's because you learned that gulping it down will burn your tongue and throat. Did you sue the first time you did that? No. You probably chalked it up to a lesson learned or an accident. That woman did not. Instead she sued (nevertheless, she probably doesnt put coffee in her lap anymore). Maybe next time something, anything, unfortunate happens to you, you will too.
1) Show me the reference to the citation of the health code where they had temperatures out of code at that McDonalds. I didn't see one. Is that where your comments in quotes came from? Quotes are usually accompanied by a reference.
2) Ad infinitem arguments only serve to make responses very Lame, and do show ignorance to the argued point. Even more lame is an impossible reference to coffee at 250 dgrees, since it can only get to boiling or thereabouts because of the laws of physics. More heat will only make it boil away quicker, unless its in a pressure cooker. Show me the person who would be dumb enough to drink coffee out of a pressure cooker, and I'll show you a litigant who's going to get laughed out of court.
Ignorance of physics aside, show me the person who would be dumb enough to drink coffee that is actually boiling. After all, the consumer is completely blameless in these circumstances, right?
I did read the case, and I know about the whole "prior history" with hot coffee thing which made the judge stand by that ridiculous award amount.
News Flash: Coffee is HOT. That case is a perfect example of why our litigious society is so bogged down in paperwork and CYA procedures.
If McDonalds (or any other establishment) feels compelled to serve its coffee cold because of the threat of litigation, I hope a lawyer gets the first cup.
WTF? do you actually expect us to believe that you ask women to sign a waiver before you order them a drink? What, pray tell, does this waiver specifically say?
Even more to the point: what type of women do you expect to hook up with by this obvious show of what, at best, can easily be (mis)interpreted as suspicion and mistrust?
Mod me down as a troll but in response to your statement of "Maybe that's why I never get laid. Hmm. Nice guys finish last.. *Sigh*" are you really so surprised? With that kind of behavior, you will likely find yourself fulfilling the truism of "getting what you deserve."
I AM a "nice guy" and was low on the totem-pole of popularity (i.e. geek) in high school with few socializing skills. But even then, being teased/abused/mistreated by men AND women alike, I didn't automatically suspect anyone I met of less-than-honest motives; I let my slow-but-sure social learning/instincts clue me in on who was trustworthy and who was not. Meaningful sex with beautful women eventually came my way in college without the need of a waiver.
You should consider using your powers of observation and judgement of character (you'd be surprised at how good they are if you'd actually pay careful attention to your instincts) instead of a waiver/contract. You might get more meaningful/rewarding interaction with women. Treat them with trust and respect and you may actually get it, and more, in return.
not only that but if these types of services ever involve people paying ANY fee for VOIP (I.E., if it is not free) then regulation, IMO is inevitable.
Also, when any of the following issues occur to the FREE or modest fee VOIP/WIFI provider, well meaning people/small businesses of modest means will give pause when considering wehter to provide these services:
* someone cant be reached in an "emergency" so the provider is sued * a "service disruption" is deemed unaceptable and the provider is sued * the VOIP/WIFI is hacked for phun * someone and/or some business/organization, (ab)uses the VOIP/WIFI to spam/troll/hack a major telco/consumer/business/gov't agency and gets sued. * insert your ignorant/money-grubbing/just plain wierd lawsuit here.
Like that old saying goes: No Good deed Goes unpunished.
If you are talking about apples that are actually EDIBLE (that is, the ones that taste good) then the last paragraph is a moot argument.
The odds of finding an apple tree which bears fruit (literally) worth eating is perhaps on the order of ONE IN SEVERAL THOUSAND, if not much worse. An edible apple is one which will not make your face turn from the overpowering sourness as you eat it.
Good apples are sweet.
NPR's Science Friday did a special on these edible apple a whle back. Most of the red delicious apples you eat are from A SINGLE genetic strain that has been used for over 50 years by means of grafting. If you took the seed from that apple, planted it, and had an apple from its tree, Odds are much more likely than not that it would taste so sour it would be unfit for any form of consumption.
This same principle applies to genetically modified apple seeds. They'd taste horrible, and therefore be useless.
Unless, of course, the apple was genetically modified to always taste good with every single planting.
I honestly do not beleive that even the RIAA would come after you knowingly. First of all, they only go after content POSTERS, not downloaders, for a variety of reasons....
But let's say for sake of argument that they did, and you got hit with one of their rent-a-law-firm shake-n-bake subpeonas: I can't see how they would want to prosecute a person who could plausibly agruge before a jury that they had purchased even 1 copy of the original CD in question.
"Even if backing up your DVDs is illegal, why not just do it anyway? Taking your work copy of Win2k home and installing it on your own computer is illegal too but how many people here have done that? There is no SS that is going to start breaking into your house and checking to see if you have."
AFIAK, MS does not currently engage in the active practice of pursuing *individual* pirates. But they do occasionally take an interest in those individuals and/or businesses/groups who pirate for profit and those who post pirated content on the web, and very occasionally, various key generators (keygen) and software protection schemes (cracks).
In cases like this police (in the U.S. and abroad) will assist at their request. In these instances, the "SS" may indeed kick down doors to stop this kind of illegal activity.
I'm not trying to pass judgement here, but to respond with what I beleive to be accurate information.
" Why can't they just sue the company who's purchasing the ad, instead of suing Google?"
1) Google has more money. 2) Google is an easy target. 3) Suing Google garners more publicity.
Your question makes the assumption that litigants/claiments are being wholly reasonable in their intent to have their grievances redressed and dont mereley want payola, regardless of the damadge it does to the information industry.
/. has covered numerous examples of how Diebold has a less than stellar record when it comes to their honesty, impartiality, and a willingness to pursue auditability and quality control in their machines. Here in Ohio, a protsest march was held regarding Diebold's practices at a shareholder meeting.
I heard an interview on NPR today where the chief of marketing participated in the on air talk-show (InfOhio after 9) review of this protest and Diebold's activities with regard to electronic voting. He basically said California's Voting Laws were so complex and constantly changing that they were not upset at having to leave the CA e-voting machine market.
Sounds like the pot calling the Kettle Black to me.
Diebold's CEO and President Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio (which makes me angry to have them here in my state) to Bush in November, donated to the Bush campaign and worked to organize re-election effrts to do the same. Since this time he has publicy apoligized for his public support of the Bush campaign (one would guess because of the obvious suspicions of impartiality and conflict-of-interest, wether founded or not) and vowed to keep out in the future. IMO, the damadge of his public display of support has already been done. He hasn't asked for the money back. I don't think its unreasonable to hope that the CEO and President of a company hawking a product that manages/administers/records voting would treat voting what it is, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY. He and his company are not trustworthy to me.
The RIAA is pursiung people who they believe are engaging in copyright infringement, an already illegal activity. The basis of the *motivation* for their actions is quite legal and justifiable, although their *methods* under the DMCA are arguably much less so.
In this case, a Florida county is just looking for an excuse to draw blood from the stone of businesses unfortunate enough to be located there (though very possibly not for long if this idea takes hold there). They have no backing that I can see under federal tax guidelines, and I am quite doubtful any upper level appeals court will let this kind of silliness pass taxational precdent and/or constitutional muster.
In short, I don't really see these concepts being related at all.
Next thing you know, they'll want to tax the air we breathe and the water we drink. Oh, wait...
"I hope I never see the day that people go to jail over speeding tickets."
I regret to inform you that day has already come:
a google search for "Gail Atwater Arrest" turns up the following:
http://www.ocnsignal.com/speedtrapsOR.htm#aapres s http://www.legalbrief.co.za/view_1.php?artnum=6 11 http://jl-site.com/ProPerInc/NYtimes.html
The above links provides a brief synopsis of a woman who was pulled over for a seatbelt violation in Texas.
The officer, Mr. Bart Turek, who pulled her over was pissed off at this "soccer mom" in her pickup who had ponited out a false accusation made by him earler about seatbelts (Mr. Tuek claimed her son was not wearing one when he was).
When he saw her again he got his second chance. He pulled over Ms. Gail Atwater again, and used foul language with her while her children were in the car. Ms. Atwater asked the officer not to use the language because of the presence of her children in the car with her.
That *really* annoyed him. While Texas law does not permit an officer to arrest a driver for "speeding", it does permit them to arrest suspected offenders for other minor traffic violations. Because Ms. Atwater, and her children were not wearing seatbelt as prescribed by texas law, that was all the excuse Mr. Turek needed to arrest her on the spot, force her crying children to be picked up by a friend at the police station, and incarcerate her before she paid the $50.00 maximum fine for the seatbelt violation.
So while you may not be arrested for speeding, make sure of the following the next time an officer pulls you over:
* all of your tail-lights are in full working order (including brake lights...) * you use your turning signal for changing lanes or turning, (this includes being pulled over by the police) * you are wearing your seat belt
because depending on the state you are, in these offenses allow the officer to arrest you.
I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me, since I modded the parent down at "-1, flaimbait," but I would imagine that your strong language was intended nonetheless.
Your choice use of words ("Dumbass" and "Idioit") really annoyed me, so I modded you down as well as "flaimbait."
Then a cooler side of me prevailed, and I posted a reply to you here to cancel out my improper modding down your and his comment because while your language was offensive, you did have a valid point. It was an honest mistake (to err is human and IMO it was an honest error), and no, I wasn't familiar with Godwin's Law, until now.
It's probably worth noting that, in my opinion, you could have said the same thing without the unnecessary language.
I have HP NC8000 (basically a re-branded compaq NC8000). I bought it just few days ago. I researched all of this for about 3 months in depth before I finally bought one. I have been eyeing the laptop market for about eight years now, after having bought my mother 2 laptops over this period of time and one for my sister.
I decided on the HP because, for me, it represented the best compromise of power, weight, speed, and graphics, and desktop-replacement functionality. It has a 1.7GHZ pentium M, an ATI 9600 radeon Gpu with 128ddr ram on the gpu, the laptop itself has 1 gig of 333mhz DDR remory. On one battery, the laptop lasts me about 4.5 hours unplugged (more if I dont play games...) or almost 8 hours with the optional second battery. It weighs about 6.5 lbs and is 1.6 inches thick. It is *great* for wireless gaming with the 802.11g integrated card and integrated bluetooth.
My second choice was an IMB thinkpad t41p, but I ultimately decided on the HP because it has a built in DVD+RW drive and a second modular port (yes, it is a 3 spindle design) and I was able to get it under an E and I educational discount, so I saved about $800.00 ^ ^.
CNET did a review of the NC8000 and they were fond of it as well: http://reviews.cnet.com/HP_Compaq_nc8000_se ries/45 05-3121_7-30583495.html?tag=search
CNET liked the T41P a bit more, though: http://reviews.cnet.com/IBM_ThinkPad_T41/ 4505-3121 _7-30567436.html?tag=pdtl-list
I *do* game occasionally (warcraft 3, Unreal, and Diablo II - yeah I know its old...) but also have a real life as a married man of 11 years, with a baby on the way [due in spetember:-) ], and I am a small business owner (I own/operate a small College Bookstore).
Oh, yeah, and it's great for long car drives as my custom mp3 playlist goes on and on, and for movies in the Hotels...
because of the push for 1st person shooters and gorgeous rendered graphics, IMO.
I am in my mid 30s. Most of the games I loved as a teenager are on MAME but don't allow for progression/devlopment - unless you play the sequal, of course.
Precious few computer games of recent memory really engaged me for more than a few days. They were, in no particular order:
1) Civilization II (the king of them all) and III 2) DungeonMaster (a close second from the Amiga, which hit the PC way too late) 3) Ultima III and IV (now I'm really showing my age...). 4) Diablo II and the expansion pack 5) Starcraft and Warcraft III 6) Myst and Siberia 7) uMoria (DOS and GUI).
IMO, these games were either truly innovative or so improved on their predecessor to merit BUYING the game and reccomending it to my friends.
also, IMO arcarde games were moved faster into obscurity by the fact that they focused to heavily on the street fighter genre. This is not to say that street fighter was not a great game because it was, but as time went by these were all I saw in the arcades.
Similarly, when I go into the computer stores today to buy games, I see a clear focus on the 1st person rendered/shooter types to the extent that they appear to be crowding out ideas for other games. Unreal is great fun if your reflexes are great, but snipers picking me off from God-know where just takes the fun out of it for me. Maybe this is the criticism that the article had in mind about few truly innovative game ideas.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to be said for gorgeous 3d rendered graphics and visual realism, but that should be the foundation, not the substance of a game. .
Slashdot Mirror
"We will be able to fire a stream of electricity like water out of a hose at one or many targets in a single sweep,"
As long as I don't have to do this vs. Sentinels...
.
I know. But I didn't want to cite smoking mainly because I thought it was a poor example for the point I was trying to make about honoring one's word.
The Tobacco situation I see a bit differently. "Younger smokers" (a term that is wide open to interpretation I know) in particular, really should known better than to think smoking won't harm them - with the warning label, no less. For this group, suing the industry on the basis of "I didn't know" is usually just a bunch of ignorant/irresonsible crap.
"Older smokers" OTOH are a more complicated situation, IMO, because of the proven campiagn of deception that the smoking industry engaged in for many years, along with the government handing them out to soldiers during WWII (there may have been others, I don't know).
Still, even then, many of the "Dough Boys" knew better and referred to cigarettes as "coffin nails."
you're right about the mis-used analogy, of course.
But I must say I prefer the smell of Gorilla Piss to that of a Goat.
.
When Southwest posts a privacy policy they should be bound by it. Saying that they don't have to bound to what they said in (virtual) writing because people didnt actually read the policy does not excuse Northwest, or others, from their obligations.
By this logic we could say that parents who have children born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome can sue all of the beer companies because "no one reads those warning labels by the Surgeon General/Government anyway."
.
Working to discover what security flaws exist in any given program, series of prgrams, Operating Systems, hardware, etc is not the real issue in my opinion: it is the idea of working to design a system that is as stable, flexible/adaptable, transparent, and clear as possible while at the same time providing a foundation that allows room for future growth. To really execute all of these concepts well can be a truly daunting task, IMO, given the often limited salaries/wages, time and other constraints (e.g. management) that progammers in particular have to face. This is just one of the reasons programs/kernels/systems, etc go through so many revisions.
I know the article doesnt imply this at all but the solution to security and stability problems does not lie in simply sticiking our collective heads in the sand. We have to answer the who/what/when/where/why elements of design. Building a better mousetrap involves many elements, as I alluded to above.
FWIW, most College's and Universities have agreements with Microsoft where enrolled students can purchse Office xp/2k3 and Windows xp for $20.00 per copy.
This scheme is undoubtedly used to get new users hooked; but it is, IMO, a common practice at many schools and higher-ed instituions.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but wanted to let you know that as a college student, price would not be the main reason to keep me away from windows (for the reason stated above).
.
If you RTFA, as you say, you would notice that there was a fair amount of analysis there. one of the most telling bits I saw was the following, which I did not need to take with a large grain of sodium:
"Microsoft declined to comment on the open-source challenge, but CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a recent strategy memo to employees that was leaked on the Internet: "Noncommercial software products in general, and Linux in particular, present a competitive challenge for us and for our entire industry, and they require our concentrated focus and attention. . . . In this environment of lean budgets and concerns about Microsoft's attention to customers, noncommercial software such as Linux and OpenOffice is seen as an interesting, 'good enough' or 'free' alternative."
That sounded like a sound analysis to me, in terms of what is causing erosion of MS market share (besides piracy, but that has been and always will be a constant force in any software that is not completely free).
.
"Sorry, I figured since about two dozen posts had already cited the text of the case and the decision, it would be modded down as redundant to do so yet again. Look for a moment; you'll find it."
f m?pagei d=71)
I think you may be a bit to concerned with deep nested comment moderation, but fine, because legal matters are important to me, I looked. Here is one:
1) http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
A slashdot poster said:
Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit". (Source: NCAUSA. Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?
Here is a link from where the above argument was made:
http://www.ncausa.org/public/pages/index.c
I looked for more actual links or citations (not, "I saw somewhere" or "it has been said") that would support your argument, and found one. One poster modded to 5 claimed the health dept cited them for coffee that was too hot, but failed to provide actual proof.
Here was the one link I found from examining the the entire discussion flatnested at comment threshold zero, that provided a link that seems to support your argument:
http://atlanet.org. The site does not allow deep linking. So, per a slashdot poster: "Go to the home page and follow the links to Consumer & Media Resources -> Factsheets & Resources -> Debunking Urban Legends About So-Called "Frivolous Lawsuits" and the Civil Justice System -> Click Here For the Truth About the McDonaild's Coffee Case."
Nothing in that page mentions a health dept. citation, though the point behind your agument of coffee being served too hot is summed up well there
"The point is... there must be a threshold temperature after which it is unsafe to serve "hot" coffee. It's ridiculous to claim that because coffee is "hot" that it cannot possibly be served too hot. Handing someone a liquid that can give third degree burns in nothing but a styrofoam cup with a plastic lid seems like a kinda bad idea to me, and not something that is part of my ordinary fast-food-coffee experience. You seem to think there's nothing wrong with it, though... so maybe, karmically, it's more likely to happen to you than to me. I can only hope!"
I did seee that I was one of many to support the idea that people should take care with their hot coffee, and that serving coffee at the recommended temperature of 180 degrees is a reasonable temperature. Judgine by your response (karmically speaking, as you put it), maybe we all deserve to get burned for suscribing to this point of view. However, wishing people bad luck is definately not good karma, my friend.
By that idea, we really should get rid of all hot water dispensers, since nearly all dispense it at just below boiling; that hot choclate could get us in our laps, too. Ever notice that you sip your hot choclate or hot coffee? It's because you learned that gulping it down will burn your tongue and throat. Did you sue the first time you did that? No. You probably chalked it up to a lesson learned or an accident. That woman did not. Instead she sued (nevertheless, she probably doesnt put coffee in her lap anymore). Maybe next time something, anything, unfortunate happens to you, you will too.
It almost makes me want to vote Republican.
Oh, wait, a nitpicker...
OK, I'll bite:
1) Show me the reference to the citation of the health code where they had temperatures out of code at that McDonalds. I didn't see one. Is that where your comments in quotes came from? Quotes are usually accompanied by a reference.
2) Ad infinitem arguments only serve to make responses very Lame, and do show ignorance to the argued point. Even more lame is an impossible reference to coffee at 250 dgrees, since it can only get to boiling or thereabouts because of the laws of physics. More heat will only make it boil away quicker, unless its in a pressure cooker. Show me the person who would be dumb enough to drink coffee out of a pressure cooker, and I'll show you a litigant who's going to get laughed out of court.
Ignorance of physics aside, show me the person who would be dumb enough to drink coffee that is actually boiling. After all, the consumer is completely blameless in these circumstances, right?
.
I did read the case, and I know about the whole "prior history" with hot coffee thing which made the judge stand by that ridiculous award amount.
News Flash: Coffee is HOT. That case is a perfect example of why our litigious society is so bogged down in paperwork and CYA procedures.
If McDonalds (or any other establishment) feels compelled to serve its coffee cold because of the threat of litigation, I hope a lawyer gets the first cup.
.
WTF? do you actually expect us to believe that you ask women to sign a waiver before you order them a drink? What, pray tell, does this waiver specifically say?
Even more to the point: what type of women do you expect to hook up with by this obvious show of what, at best, can easily be (mis)interpreted as suspicion and mistrust?
Mod me down as a troll but in response to your statement of "Maybe that's why I never get laid. Hmm. Nice guys finish last.. *Sigh*" are you really so surprised? With that kind of behavior, you will likely find yourself fulfilling the truism of "getting what you deserve."
I AM a "nice guy" and was low on the totem-pole of popularity (i.e. geek) in high school with few socializing skills. But even then, being teased/abused/mistreated by men AND women alike, I didn't automatically suspect anyone I met of less-than-honest motives; I let my slow-but-sure social learning/instincts clue me in on who was trustworthy and who was not. Meaningful sex with beautful women eventually came my way in college without the need of a waiver.
You should consider using your powers of observation and judgement of character (you'd be surprised at how good they are if you'd actually pay careful attention to your instincts) instead of a waiver/contract. You might get more meaningful/rewarding interaction with women. Treat them with trust and respect and you may actually get it, and more, in return.
end of rant.
.
not only that but if these types of services ever involve people paying ANY fee for VOIP (I.E., if it is not free) then regulation, IMO is inevitable.
Also, when any of the following issues occur to the FREE or modest fee VOIP/WIFI provider, well meaning people/small businesses of modest means will give pause when considering wehter to provide these services:
* someone cant be reached in an "emergency" so the provider is sued
* a "service disruption" is deemed unaceptable and the provider is sued
* the VOIP/WIFI is hacked for phun
* someone and/or some business/organization, (ab)uses the VOIP/WIFI to spam/troll/hack a major telco/consumer/business/gov't agency and gets sued.
* insert your ignorant/money-grubbing/just plain wierd lawsuit here.
Like that old saying goes: No Good deed Goes unpunished.
If you are talking about apples that are actually EDIBLE (that is, the ones that taste good) then the last paragraph is a moot argument.
The odds of finding an apple tree which bears fruit (literally) worth eating is perhaps on the order of ONE IN SEVERAL THOUSAND, if not much worse. An edible apple is one which will not make your face turn from the overpowering sourness as you eat it.
Good apples are sweet.
NPR's Science Friday did a special on these edible apple a whle back. Most of the red delicious apples you eat are from A SINGLE genetic strain that has been used for over 50 years by means of grafting. If you took the seed from that apple, planted it, and had an apple from its tree, Odds are much more likely than not that it would taste so sour it would be unfit for any form of consumption.
This same principle applies to genetically modified apple seeds. They'd taste horrible, and therefore be useless.
Unless, of course, the apple was genetically modified to always taste good with every single planting.
But that is another argument...
.
I honestly do not beleive that even the RIAA would come after you knowingly. First of all, they only go after content POSTERS, not downloaders, for a variety of reasons....
But let's say for sake of argument that they did, and you got hit with one of their rent-a-law-firm shake-n-bake subpeonas: I can't see how they would want to prosecute a person who could plausibly agruge before a jury that they had purchased even 1 copy of the original CD in question.
Don't be so paranoid.
.
"Even if backing up your DVDs is illegal, why not just do it anyway? Taking your work copy of Win2k home and installing it on your own computer is illegal too but how many people here have done that? There is no SS that is going to start breaking into your house and checking to see if you have."
AFIAK, MS does not currently engage in the active practice of pursuing *individual* pirates. But they do occasionally take an interest in those individuals and/or businesses/groups who pirate for profit and those who post pirated content on the web, and very occasionally, various key generators (keygen) and software protection schemes (cracks).
In cases like this police (in the U.S. and abroad) will assist at their request. In these instances, the "SS" may indeed kick down doors to stop this kind of illegal activity.
I'm not trying to pass judgement here, but to respond with what I beleive to be accurate information.
.
" Why can't they just sue the company who's purchasing the ad, instead of suing Google?"
1) Google has more money.
2) Google is an easy target.
3) Suing Google garners more publicity.
Your question makes the assumption that litigants/claiments are being wholly reasonable in their intent to have their grievances redressed and dont mereley want payola, regardless of the damadge it does to the information industry.
.
/. has covered numerous examples of how Diebold has a less than stellar record when it comes to their honesty, impartiality, and a willingness to pursue auditability and quality control in their machines. Here in Ohio, a protsest march was held regarding Diebold's practices at a shareholder meeting.
I heard an interview on NPR today where the chief of marketing participated in the on air talk-show (InfOhio after 9) review of this protest and Diebold's activities with regard to electronic voting. He basically said California's Voting Laws were so complex and constantly changing that they were not upset at having to leave the CA e-voting machine market.
Sounds like the pot calling the Kettle Black to me.
Diebold's CEO and President Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio (which makes me angry to have them here in my state) to Bush in November, donated to the Bush campaign and worked to organize re-election effrts to do the same. Since this time he has publicy apoligized for his public support of the Bush campaign (one would guess because of the obvious suspicions of impartiality and conflict-of-interest, wether founded or not) and vowed to keep out in the future. IMO, the damadge of his public display of support has already been done. He hasn't asked for the money back. I don't think its unreasonable to hope that the CEO and President of a company hawking a product that manages/administers/records voting would treat voting what it is, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY. He and his company are not trustworthy to me.
.
until now, but I love what I see as the idea behind the work they are doing: Fighting unwarranted, unfounded and/or improperly sworn/filed patents
Go get 'em!
.
The RIAA is pursiung people who they believe are engaging in copyright infringement, an already illegal activity. The basis of the *motivation* for their actions is quite legal and justifiable, although their *methods* under the DMCA are arguably much less so.
In this case, a Florida county is just looking for an excuse to draw blood from the stone of businesses unfortunate enough to be located there (though very possibly not for long if this idea takes hold there). They have no backing that I can see under federal tax guidelines, and I am quite doubtful any upper level appeals court will let this kind of silliness pass taxational precdent and/or constitutional muster.
In short, I don't really see these concepts being related at all.
Next thing you know, they'll want to tax the air we breathe and the water we drink. Oh, wait...
.
"I hope I never see the day that people go to jail over speeding tickets."
s s6 11
I regret to inform you that day has already come:
a google search for "Gail Atwater Arrest" turns up the following:
http://www.ocnsignal.com/speedtrapsOR.htm#aapre
http://www.legalbrief.co.za/view_1.php?artnum=
http://jl-site.com/ProPerInc/NYtimes.html
The above links provides a brief synopsis of a woman who was pulled over for a seatbelt violation in Texas.
The officer, Mr. Bart Turek, who pulled her over was pissed off at this "soccer mom" in her pickup who had ponited out a false accusation made by him earler about seatbelts (Mr. Tuek claimed her son was not wearing one when he was).
When he saw her again he got his second chance. He pulled over Ms. Gail Atwater again, and used foul language with her while her children were in the car. Ms. Atwater asked the officer not to use the language because of the presence of her children in the car with her.
That *really* annoyed him. While Texas law does not permit an officer to arrest a driver for "speeding", it does permit them to arrest suspected offenders for other minor traffic violations. Because Ms. Atwater, and her children were not wearing seatbelt as prescribed by texas law, that was all the excuse Mr. Turek needed to arrest her on the spot, force her crying children to be picked up by a friend at the police station, and incarcerate her before she paid the $50.00 maximum fine for the seatbelt violation.
So while you may not be arrested for speeding, make sure of the following the next time an officer pulls you over:
* all of your tail-lights are in full working order (including brake lights...)
* you use your turning signal for changing lanes or turning, (this includes being pulled over by the police)
* you are wearing your seat belt
because depending on the state you are, in these offenses allow the officer to arrest you.
Being that I was born on this day in '68.
:D
I guess that explains why I like to be online all the time ^ ^
A bit off-topic, I know, but it's nice to know I'm close to the birth of something nifty
.
I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me, since I modded the parent down at "-1, flaimbait," but I would imagine that your strong language was intended nonetheless.
Your choice use of words ("Dumbass" and "Idioit") really annoyed me, so I modded you down as well as "flaimbait."
Then a cooler side of me prevailed, and I posted a reply to you here to cancel out my improper modding down your and his comment because while your language was offensive, you did have a valid point. It was an honest mistake (to err is human and IMO it was an honest error), and no, I wasn't familiar with Godwin's Law, until now.
It's probably worth noting that, in my opinion, you could have said the same thing without the unnecessary language.
Again, sorry about the error.
.
The sager 8790
http://pctorque.com/8790.php
kicks the pants off of any Alienware notebook and costs several hundreds (if not a thousand) less.
Though the gpu is not upgradeable, at least you have the option of not paying the Microsoft tax if you want to use one of the Linux Flavors.
I have HP NC8000 (basically a re-branded compaq NC8000). I bought it just few days ago. I researched all of this for about 3 months in depth before I finally bought one. I have been eyeing the laptop market for about eight years now, after having bought my mother 2 laptops over this period of time and one for my sister.
e ries/45 05-3121_7-30583495.html?tag=search
/ 4505-3121 _7-30567436.html?tag=pdtl-list
:-) ], and I am a small business owner (I own/operate a small College Bookstore).
I decided on the HP because, for me, it represented the best compromise of power, weight, speed, and graphics, and desktop-replacement functionality. It has a 1.7GHZ pentium M, an ATI 9600 radeon Gpu with 128ddr ram on the gpu, the laptop itself has 1 gig of 333mhz DDR remory. On one battery, the laptop lasts me about 4.5 hours unplugged (more if I dont play games...) or almost 8 hours with the optional second battery. It weighs about 6.5 lbs and is 1.6 inches thick. It is *great* for wireless gaming with the 802.11g integrated card and integrated bluetooth.
My second choice was an IMB thinkpad t41p, but I ultimately decided on the HP because it has a built in DVD+RW drive and a second modular port (yes, it is a 3 spindle design) and I was able to get it under an E and I educational discount, so I saved about $800.00 ^ ^.
CNET did a review of the NC8000 and they were fond of it as well:
http://reviews.cnet.com/HP_Compaq_nc8000_s
CNET liked the T41P a bit more, though:
http://reviews.cnet.com/IBM_ThinkPad_T41
I *do* game occasionally (warcraft 3, Unreal, and Diablo II - yeah I know its old...) but also have a real life as a married man of 11 years, with a baby on the way [due in spetember
Oh, yeah, and it's great for long car drives as my custom mp3 playlist goes on and on, and for movies in the Hotels...
.
because of the push for 1st person shooters and gorgeous rendered graphics, IMO.
I am in my mid 30s. Most of the games I loved as a teenager are on MAME but don't allow for progression/devlopment - unless you play the sequal, of course.
Precious few computer games of recent memory really engaged me for more than a few days. They were, in no particular order:
1) Civilization II (the king of them all) and III
2) DungeonMaster (a close second from the Amiga, which hit the PC way too late)
3) Ultima III and IV (now I'm really showing my age...).
4) Diablo II and the expansion pack
5) Starcraft and Warcraft III
6) Myst and Siberia
7) uMoria (DOS and GUI).
IMO, these games were either truly innovative or so improved on their predecessor to merit BUYING the game and reccomending it to my friends.
also, IMO arcarde games were moved faster into obscurity by the fact that they focused to heavily on the street fighter genre. This is not to say that street fighter was not a great game because it was, but as time went by these were all I saw in the arcades.
Similarly, when I go into the computer stores today to buy games, I see a clear focus on the 1st person rendered/shooter types to the extent that they appear to be crowding out ideas for other games. Unreal is great fun if your reflexes are great, but snipers picking me off from God-know where just takes the fun out of it for me. Maybe this is the criticism that the article had in mind about few truly innovative game ideas.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to be said for gorgeous 3d rendered graphics and visual realism, but that should be the foundation, not the substance of a game.
.