There were still a number of loose threads that needed to be tied up, like the relationship between the Sebaceans, the Skaarans, and Earth all having a common origin,
The common Sebacean/Terran origin was covered by the nice peacemaker aliens noting they found an obscure species from far off with no connection to local conflicts suitable muscle after some modifications. So far as I know, Skaarans don't share a common origin; IIR, they only interbreed with Sebaceans with genetic engineering assistance, and the common flower may be a terran export dating to the peacemaker visit to that area.
or what Earth ended up doing with the advanced technology Crichton left them,
Um... what technology? They got to peek at some of the toys for a while, and maybe a few thousand doses of translator microbes left behind. The technological impact won't be even as big as the Grays' toys from Roswell. =)
The main tech package he left for them was a tape recorder with detailed instructions... at Tranquility Base. Assuming a history that (evidently) closely parallels ours, it will take a minimum of five years and probably closer to ten before they can get back to the moon. The main impact for at least the next decade or so would be cultural... but I doubt they will reunite the two qiblah prior to lunar or Legrangian colonization... and probably not until they reach Mars.
But then, I prefer exotic natural beauties over silicone-enhanced bleach-blonde barbie dolls.
"Gentlemen prefer blondes; I prefer brunettes... but everyone smiles at a redhead." Which goes far in explaining the wide popularity of Bev Crusher, and X-Files' Dana Sculley. (Yes, you in the back, X-Files is not Trek; now please shut up.)
Myself, I think I prefered Dax's Ezri incarnation, but that's because of my fondness for petite, short haired, assertive women.
I think we should find a way to attach the same stigma to spam customers that we do to the spammers.
Nah... Congress can't make stupidity illegal; they'd lose too many votes. The universe, not being elected, can... but tends to be in favor of capital punishment as a way of preventing repeated behavior.
An utterly illegal and unethical solution would be to start up a V1AGRA spam outfit, and taint the supply so that one pill in twenty was actually a disguised lethal dose of cyanide. This would cut into demand sharply, and possibly decrease average human gulibility. Of course, when you got caught, the electric chair might be the only thing that saved you from the lynch mobs.
A marginally less illegal and unethical approach would be starting an urban legend that in fact evil fanatic group was doing exactly that, and that some number of people are confirmed dead from it, with minor male Hollywood sleaze in the hospital having barely survived due to semi-plausible escape. I hypothesize there is a large overlap between those susceptible to spam purchasing and those who believe urban legends without checking to provide effective innoculation.
Lessee, how about "Al Qaeda, 6, Cliff Robertson, alcohol induced vomiting preventing the full dose from being absorbed" for the first round?
Are you telling me that in a world with hand-held weapons that can supposedly level/vaporize small mountains you are going to pull out your bat'leth or lightsaber and duke it out hand to hand?
Are you telling me that in a world with fuel-air bombs that can blow up small cities, you still need infantry?
In situations where control, rather than annihilation, of something is required, sheer brute force is inadequate. You need more precise application of power to capture than destroy-- and capture and control are often far preferable.
It's also probably relevant that you might not want to casually use armor penetrating projectile or high-energy weapons in a thin-hulled space station, for risk of ricochets or misses. Energy weapons are also undesirable in overly oxygenated atmospheres. Things like Dorothy Wire, Variable Swords, or even a good old fashioned Bowie Knife will be useful as secondary weapon choices, for when you want to take life, without taking out life support.
Mightn't this be trumped by Amendment V's "due process" clause? It also certainly would be trumped by the "just compensation" clause, if applicable to the potential case... and by federalizing private property within a state, make a State party to the suit, giving the needed standing.
Alternately, if the Congress recinds this portion of judicial authority, there is IIR legal precedent for direct petition to Congress as a judicial authority, appeal of such would then fall to the SCOTUS. (Of course, getting writ of certiorari would be a much bigger challenge in such a scenario, especially after two to four Bush appointments there.)
IANAL, but I do not understand why lying would not be protected as free speech.
Neither am I, but I may be able to help your understanding... assuming you're not just another troll.
Lying is in fact protected as free speech under many situations. You can stand in front of the Supreme Court and declaim "The Sky is Purple! The Sky is Purple!" all you want, and it's protected free speech. People may look at you funny... or not, since in DC they hear worse lies from congress regularly. =)
When you make false statements that are damaging to someone's reputation, however, it is an injury against their right of property--to wit, that reputation. While intangible, the recognition of this as property has longstanding basis in Anglo-American law and culture:
"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing.
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed."
--From Shakespeare's Othello
Thus, the right to speech (1st amendment) has to be balanced against the right to property (5th amendment, along with ludicrous amounts of Common Law). It's similar to why freedom of speech doesn't let you scream insults at me at 130 decibels with a megaphone six inches from my ear: that would be damaging. And so, the courts have issued rulings trying to strike that balance, making truth an absolute defense against claims of libel... but false statements knowingly made in malice, or with willful disregard for whether they are true, are a crime against the libeled party where you may have to pay monetary damages. (Who decides whether something is true or false, damaging or not? 7th amendment: Questions of fact must be decided by juries.) However, as a crime against private property, you can't go to jail for it. In short, it's not the speech per se that's restricted, but the damage to someone's reputation.
Freedom From Consequences is not in the Bill of Rights.
Wow, so every contract I've ever signed in the IT industry includes an unenforcable clause for which I have seeked legal council and been told is valid.
NB, this law varies from state to state. I believe California and Virginia, for example, do not disallow such non-compete clauses. So it may well be that your lawyer gave you advice correct for your current state of residence, but if you signed the contract in Kentucky (from the poster's example), that clause might not be enforcable.
Feel free to ask your legal counsel some more questions.
And in any real Democratic process there's always occasions when everyone can agree too.
Not for a statistically large population. Like uptime, getting the 99.999% majority is easy enough. It's that last small fraction that's insanely hard. Not everyone in a real Democratic process is reasonable, rational, mentally stable, or even in favor of democracy. In a real Democracy, you can find someone opposed to anything.
Yes, but charter schools principle is a private citizen not a public official. As I understand it, the usage of federal funds does not a public official make. As I understand it the standard requires a specific link to a political unit of the government before the person can be considered a public official. The further legal standard is different, specifically as Sullivan explains.
First, Federal funding appears to be only the start up money, and was not the political association to which I refer.
The primary operational funding for Charter Schools (as I understand it) is not Federal, but provided by the local sponsoring School Board... which, either elected or appointed, is a political unit of local government. Since the Charter Schools are acting as agent for the School Board, it seems arguable that the corporation is a public employee, and to the extent its own employees act to the public service, so too might they be reasonably bound in their ability to claim libel.
Furthermore, stating "The further legal standard is different, specifically as Sullivan explains" is completely misleading, as footnote 23 explicitly declines to "specify categories of persons who would or would not be included," or to delineate the bounds of "official conduct". It does, however, refer over to Barr v. Matteo... the majority ruling of which includes:
The effective functioning of a free government like ours depends largely on the force of an informed public opinion. This calls for the widest possible understanding of the quality of government service rendered by all elective or appointed public officials or employees. Such an informed understanding depends, of course, on the freedom people have to applaud or to criticize the way public employees do their jobs, from the least to the most important.
As hired by the Charter School, in turn hired by the school board, for the official function of educating the community Rugrats, it would seem that the teachers and staff may have their ability to sue for libel over claims of their mis/mal/non-feasance of such official function thus limited to where actual malice can be proven, or to where it can be shown unrelated to their job. More to the point, the Charter School Corporation itself, having been directly appointed to administer a portion of a school district, is clearly thus restricted in any claims of libel. The teachers on their own might have a much better case... but much shallower pockets to pay a lawyer. =)
Of course, I'm not a lawyer. And you're right, it's nowhere near as clear cut as it would be for, say, the state Secretary of Education... or even the elected head of the county school board. But if evidence of malice is not included in court filings, the defense would probably try a summary motion to dismiss pretty quickly.
Maybe I'm missing something, but since went does accepting money from the government allow libel and slander to become protected by the First Amendement?
Since 1964; libel or slander only need "actual malice" for public figures.
It's not relevant; the First Amendment is never a defense for libel.
Mmmm... not quite accurate under my understanding- although IANAL. Because of the First Amendment protection, standards for libel are much stricter for "public figures"-- which not only includes celebrities, but public officials acting in the capacity of their duties.
The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made [376 U.S. 254, 280] with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. -- Justice Brennan for the majority, New your Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
So, if I were to publish a claim that you were seen raping a sheep on school property, you would not have to prove actual malice, merely that the claim was false. If I were to claim the same of the school's principal, he would have to prove that it was false, and that I either knew it was false, or that I published the claim without making any effort to check.
Since the Charter schools are performing a function traditionally (in this century) performed by state and local government and under state or local contract, any competent lawyer for the parents could make a good case they should be held to the standards for public officials. Which would mean that Charter Schools cannot prove libel simply by proving the allegations false-- they have to prove the parents made the false allegations with such "actual malice".
They may be able to prove this-- but their lawyers will earn their paycheck. Charter Schools USA are probably hoping the parents will bow out, or at least tone down to a more cautious level.
The whole purpose of the US education system is to enc[]ourage obedience, not to instil[l] knowledge.
This varies widely by the school district. My senior year in high school required a course in American Government. Since previous courses had outlined the general Three Ring Circus pretty well, the non-AP course spent half a year studying local government: to wit, the school district budget process and school board elections. Students had to sign up to attend at least three board meetings, and give in class presentations before and after about the budget sections scheduled for discussion at the meeting. Beforehand presentations had to have at least one question from each student about the material that might be suitable for asking the board for in class-discussion; whether we asked such at the meeting was up to the individual student-- some did, some didn't. After presentatations summed up the discussion, and any questions asked. It had the merits of getting the students and the parents more involved. It also woke up the school board when regular attendance went from an average of two (the assigned reporter from the paper and the town kook) to around twenty (some students actually got interested in the process, and attended almost all of the meetings). They got over their surprise, but initially were disconcerted when students from their schools showed up as the voters they answered to.
There was also a more colorful incident a few years earlier, when two weeks after a unit on the Unionization movement prior to WWII, my sister's class was given (by mistake) an impossible assignment. (Between the high school library, county library, state capital city library, library of the capital branch of the state college system, and the libraries of two other nationally recognized colleges within 30 miles, a total of thirty-one answers from seventy questions could be found.) The students responded by applying the previous lesson: they formed a union, elected representatives, showed up with red-white-and-blue picket signs, and refused to enter the classroom until an outside moderator-- the principal-- was called in to negotiate with the representatives. The students also called the city paper in advance, who sent a (snickering) reporter and photographer. The teacher refered to it as "a demonstrated major educational success in all directions"-- and was thoroughly delighted to see that the students had inarguably learned something. I think my sister still has the news clipping.
We were taught the system, not only how it worked and why it worked, but how the way checks and balances allow you to challenge and change the system if you have the determination to do so... and how to judge when it was worth the trouble. This is lamentably rarer than it ought to be. This may be in part because of parental preferences-- even most non-fundamentalist zealot parents find it easier in the short run to raise children as sheep rather than wolves.
Should you have kids, you may want to remember your own troubles with the schools, and choose to live in a district that does not aim to produce human sheep.
On the other hand, I'd say that you did exceed the network AUP for your school, and deserved to get a suspension-- although perhaps not the expulsion you evidently got.
If your concern was the freedom of speech, much more direct and legally irreproachable tactics would have been more effective. In your shoes, I would have tried to organize like minded students, found out what local permit requirements are for small public protests (usually none if under 10 people and without electronic amplification), and began staging public readings of careful selections from these overlooked/censored works. (If you can find appropriate related passages from Supreme Court case rulings or Presidential writings to add in the mix, it puts you on better tactical groun
Then the license is "counterfeit", not the product itself.
The license, COA Sticker, and Media, yes; the software on the media, not really. (As a legal document, the license might also be considered a forgery; ask a lawyer.) But you expect subtle distinctions like that on Slashdot?
Technically, the term is not right, though.
Incorrect; products using counterfeit trademarks are indeed refered to as counterfeit. A word means what Congress chooses it to mean--nothing more, nothing less. The question is which is to be master -- that's all.
Is there even such a thing as "counterfeit" Windows?
The software is usually a true copy, if unlicensed. However, "Counterfeit" can also refer the the holograms and trademark representations on install media and COA install key stickers. They're not common, but there are some floating around. Those who make them are the serious grade professional criminals, not J. Random Amateur with a CD burner.
Yeah but you['re] also opening the door to fraudulent claims for free copies of XP.
I suspect submitting these claims will be much like the Credit Card fraud forms-- after an initial phone or internet report, you get in the mail a return postage paid paper report form to complete, including an affidavit with "UNDER CRIMINAL PENALTY OF PERJURY" in a nicely prominent place on the form. Yes, there will be some fraud... and that may get prosecuted. Just like credit cards.
And again if they need to track down the retailers before handing down the new cd, this will take what? one year, two years before they are charged with something, you also need proof!
Were I running this happy little corner of Microsoft, I would make sure this program was well publicized. It may even become semi-automated-- a refinement of Microsoft's current tactic of politely asking (but not requiring) authentication downloading updates.
"I want Windows Patch #7,654,321."
"OK; would you like to confirm that the copy of Windows you purchased isn't counterfeit now?"
"Uh... sure?"
"It appears this copy of Windows is counterfeit. If you would be interested in Microsoft's Windows Amnesty program to obtain a free legal replacement copy, please CLICK HERE for more information. Please be aware that future versions of Windows Update may require a verified legal copy to install updates."
"Damn... wait, free replacement? Cool."
Once Microsoft starts getting these reports in large quantities, they can go for the "low-lying fruit"-- target the reseller with 15000 reports of counterfeit sales before the reseller with 15 reports. Most lawyers generally prefer not to go to trial when there are several thousand individually documented charges against their clients.
People will never get their free copies unless the one who sold them are very,very stupid and get caught easily!
I don't think that Microsoft would wait for the actual conviction to provide the replacement key and media; after the initial report (perhaps online as above), they send out the paperwork, arriving in 3-7 business days by US Snail. Another week or two for the typical person to fill out the form and get the form and counterfeit media back in the mail. Maybe 3 weeks to process the report back at Microsoft, and confirm the existance of the vendor. Then, send out the replacement key and media, along with a legal form boiling down to "as long as you haven't lied to us, we agree not to prosecute you." Call it two months turnaround if Microsoft is dillegent.
Microsoft is run by greedy bastards, not stupid bastards. This will take out some of the larger dealers in counterfeit product faster than they can now, and hopefully (for Microsoft) more market room for legal copies. Of course, it won't do much for P2P piracy, but that can be a separate battle in the IP Wars.
You're probably going to hate me for saying this, but IT employees contribute absolutely nothing to an organization. They produce nothing, they transport nothing, they collect nothing. They're an expense. One we hope to render completely obsolete.
So is the janitor. All but the smallest businesses still need one, either on staff or as a service on contract. And if he happens to be a competent handyman, he may cover your basic electrical and plumbing needs as well.
Moreover, speaking as an IT employee, I feel I do contribute something a little more than a tech-janitor. Users need to learn how to use their systems... and sometimes, how to learn to do something new. Furthermore, sometimes they'll have trouble describing what the new task is, making automated searches of help files unhelpful... even leaving aside the need to learn how to craft a well-tailored search. A good IT staffer also serves as an internal educational resource, that can provide as-needed training as users discover new needs. Training users who often don't fully understand what their training needs are is an AI-complete problem, and I wish you luck in solving it.
Of course, training produces nothing, transports nothing, and collects nothing for the organization either....
An inference you made from some random nobody's random posting makes you "nervous about the Apple platform"? Frankly I doubt your statement that you are "an Apple user".
"User", or "Zealot?" I'm currently posting using Safari 1.0.3 (v85.8.1) on OS X.2.8 build 6R73, running on my desktop computer at work: Mac Serial XB2470NKMXD, a Dual 1GHz G4 with assorted bells and whistles. I directly support a deparment with a bit over a dozen other Macs (noticably in the minority), and indirectly support all other Macs in the VP-level-org in my unofficial role as the first contact point for exotic (IE, non-PEBKAC) Mac problems for the rest of the org support people. I'd say that qualifies me as a Mac user. The fact that I am more-or-less equally content for most tasks whether working in Mac, Windows, Linux, or Solaris does suggest I'm not a Mac zealot... which is the flavor you see more commonly on Slashdot.
It's not the random nobody's random posting; it's the news item, reliably reported by CNN and elsewhere, that's behind the random posting making me nervous. Steve Jobs is THE driving force at Apple. Steve's demonstrated response to annoyance with someone is to retaliate, regardless of the someone's formidable market standing. This increases the percieved risk that he will do something to jepardize the current Mac/PC/Linux compatibility.
The main reason I (and the other support people) can tolerate the mixed environment is that Mac software and hardware plays nice with the PC gear. That Jobs is still pulling stunts like this makes it seem much more likely he will do something not only irrational, but platform threatening. And if compatibility forces us to choose one or the other, make no mistake: despite the better security of the Mac Desktop these days, we would ban the Macs except for individuals can prove a PC will not do the job at all. This right now would knock out all but one of my users, who has legacy data in a Mac-only application from a defunct vendor... and who I'm working on an import tool for anyway.
This is a sign Steve can still drive Apple to blindly shoot itself in the foot. I fear he may be able to drive Apple to blindly shoot itself in the head, too.
"Quite surprised" is a laugh as well - they sent the proofs to Apple for approval and were asked to withhold publishing. WTF did they expect ?
Fact corrections. Requests for revisions on parts they feel are substantially inacurate. Possibly even a request for a change in title-- I can see how "iCon" would offend Steve, even while the ambiguity of the title fits the ambiguity of his personal character. A request to stop the publication entirely is not only suprising, it's utterly ludicrous, unless Apple thinks there are grounds for a major libel suit against the publisher. Publishers are in the business to publish, and they usually pay advances to authors that once they recieve a manuscript, they can't get back except from the royalties on publication.
An act like this is the gesture of a (petty) tyrant, and as an Apple user makes me nervous about the Apple platform. Would Jobs respond as vindictively (to the limits of his ability) against a software publisher who offended him? Or perhaps against a music label?
When I pay a buck for a 24 oz. Coke in a cup at the local convenience store I know their cost was about three cents, and two of those were for the cup.
Closer to ten cents, depending on how much ice and how stingy they are with the syrup dilution ratio control. Usually these drinks are about half ice (cost ~$0.01/cup in icemaker operation capital costs). Standard coke 5:1 syrup runs about $25ish for a 5 Gallon box (marginally cheaper for corporate bulk than non-chain restaurant purchase, made up for by my last purchase being four years of inflation ago), producing 3840 floz of soda, or 320 servings of 12floz to finish filling the cups, for a cost of about $0.08 per. Cups run about $0.02 each in 24 oz size. Total cost $0.11.
Still a heck of a markup for a $1.00 soda. "The perfect product costs a dime, sells for a dollar, and is both legal and addicting." Pretty durn close.
It's not going to be hard for Microsoft to do it this time.
Here's a short list of things which, if they do, Microsoft can near-eliminate PDF in short order.
Include the Metro Reader in XPsp3 and Longhorn, and as a free download in the Recommended Windows Updates for preXPsp3 and other Windows OSes.
Include the Metro Reader for Macintosh in with the next Mac Office disks, and make it available as a separate free download from Microsoft's Mactopia website.
Provide a version of the Metro Reader for Linux (gasp!), as a free download.
Make the Metro Reader also read PDFs, to ease the migration process. Plug ins for Netscape/Firefox/IE would add to this.
Make a Metro Writer that works better than Acrobat for document creation.
Of course, the "include with" might fall under "tying" and unleash various anti-trust watchdogs, so they might only be able to have it as a free download, with almost as great an effect.
The first two means almost everyone who would need to could get to read Metro. The Linux version might be needed for some of the big enterprise customers, who find the utter universal readability of PDF a major draw for using it; however, Microsoft will be reluctant to do this, as this will necessarily expose the workings more than they usually like, allowing (eventually) competitors for the MetroWriter. Still, the additional Enterprise level penetration will probably make this not only beneficial but necessary.
Making the Metro Reader also a PDF reader has the potential to let them make Acrobat Reader itself less necessary, eroding both Adobe and PDF market exposure that way.
The last part will be the hardest part. Acrobat is not a Bad product, and IMHO Microsoft is not as good as Adobe (and nowhere near Apple) for usabilty design. Nonetheless, the people they hire aren't stupid. "Worst" case, they'll make something mediocre, and merely take a large bite out of the PDF market share. "Best" case, they'll get everything except the OpenOffice users... who neither M$ or AD'ohbe are making money from anyway.
Most need permit; Giant African banned outright.
on
Snails Edge Out ADSL
·
· Score: 1
Karma-whoring Authoritative Source; Giant African snails are banned in the US for being potential carriers for a parasite, as well as being a fast reproducing agricultural pest. People also require a permit to import any snail into the country, or move snails across state lines.
So, would the data carrier's illegal nature in the US prevent digital snails from being elligible for acceptance as a standard? It's not patented... it's just illegal.
And the answer is:"Nemo" (Or "Bill", but that's a synonym.)
On the one hand, Bill's not personally guarding the integrity and privacy of the blackbox file, it's being done by (more corruptable/hackable) software. And on the other, "Ulysses, Peer of Gods In Counsel" he ain't.
A blackbox on a jet is also designed to be able to survive an explosion... and resist tampering. Will the Windows blackbox file be able to say the same?
Plus, Qui custodet ipsos custodies? Microsoft just created a new target for hackers, both writing to (for hiding their own tracks) and reading from (for extracting information when searching for personal user information.) Not insurmountable problems, but will M$ think to solve them before being bit on the backside?
Slashdot Mirror
The common Sebacean/Terran origin was covered by the nice peacemaker aliens noting they found an obscure species from far off with no connection to local conflicts suitable muscle after some modifications. So far as I know, Skaarans don't share a common origin; IIR, they only interbreed with Sebaceans with genetic engineering assistance, and the common flower may be a terran export dating to the peacemaker visit to that area.
or what Earth ended up doing with the advanced technology Crichton left them,
Um... what technology? They got to peek at some of the toys for a while, and maybe a few thousand doses of translator microbes left behind. The technological impact won't be even as big as the Grays' toys from Roswell. =)
The main tech package he left for them was a tape recorder with detailed instructions... at Tranquility Base . Assuming a history that (evidently) closely parallels ours, it will take a minimum of five years and probably closer to ten before they can get back to the moon. The main impact for at least the next decade or so would be cultural... but I doubt they will reunite the two qiblah prior to lunar or Legrangian colonization... and probably not until they reach Mars.
"Gentlemen prefer blondes; I prefer brunettes... but everyone smiles at a redhead." Which goes far in explaining the wide popularity of Bev Crusher, and X-Files' Dana Sculley. (Yes, you in the back, X-Files is not Trek; now please shut up.)
Myself, I think I prefered Dax's Ezri incarnation, but that's because of my fondness for petite, short haired, assertive women.
Nah... Congress can't make stupidity illegal; they'd lose too many votes. The universe, not being elected, can... but tends to be in favor of capital punishment as a way of preventing repeated behavior.
An utterly illegal and unethical solution would be to start up a V1AGRA spam outfit, and taint the supply so that one pill in twenty was actually a disguised lethal dose of cyanide. This would cut into demand sharply, and possibly decrease average human gulibility. Of course, when you got caught, the electric chair might be the only thing that saved you from the lynch mobs.
A marginally less illegal and unethical approach would be starting an urban legend that in fact evil fanatic group was doing exactly that, and that some number of people are confirmed dead from it, with minor male Hollywood sleaze in the hospital having barely survived due to semi-plausible escape. I hypothesize there is a large overlap between those susceptible to spam purchasing and those who believe urban legends without checking to provide effective innoculation.
Lessee, how about "Al Qaeda, 6, Cliff Robertson, alcohol induced vomiting preventing the full dose from being absorbed" for the first round?
Are you telling me that in a world with fuel-air bombs that can blow up small cities, you still need infantry?
In situations where control, rather than annihilation, of something is required, sheer brute force is inadequate. You need more precise application of power to capture than destroy-- and capture and control are often far preferable.
It's also probably relevant that you might not want to casually use armor penetrating projectile or high-energy weapons in a thin-hulled space station, for risk of ricochets or misses. Energy weapons are also undesirable in overly oxygenated atmospheres. Things like Dorothy Wire, Variable Swords, or even a good old fashioned Bowie Knife will be useful as secondary weapon choices, for when you want to take life, without taking out life support.
Mightn't this be trumped by Amendment V's "due process" clause? It also certainly would be trumped by the "just compensation" clause, if applicable to the potential case... and by federalizing private property within a state, make a State party to the suit, giving the needed standing.
Alternately, if the Congress recinds this portion of judicial authority, there is IIR legal precedent for direct petition to Congress as a judicial authority, appeal of such would then fall to the SCOTUS. (Of course, getting writ of certiorari would be a much bigger challenge in such a scenario, especially after two to four Bush appointments there.)
IANAL, I just know the law is an ass.
No, you'll still need bribery, but you can just dump all of it on one senator.
Neither am I, but I may be able to help your understanding... assuming you're not just another troll.
Lying is in fact protected as free speech under many situations. You can stand in front of the Supreme Court and declaim "The Sky is Purple! The Sky is Purple!" all you want, and it's protected free speech. People may look at you funny... or not, since in DC they hear worse lies from congress regularly. =)
When you make false statements that are damaging to someone's reputation, however, it is an injury against their right of property--to wit, that reputation. While intangible, the recognition of this as property has longstanding basis in Anglo-American law and culture:
Thus, the right to speech (1st amendment) has to be balanced against the right to property (5th amendment, along with ludicrous amounts of Common Law). It's similar to why freedom of speech doesn't let you scream insults at me at 130 decibels with a megaphone six inches from my ear: that would be damaging. And so, the courts have issued rulings trying to strike that balance, making truth an absolute defense against claims of libel... but false statements knowingly made in malice, or with willful disregard for whether they are true, are a crime against the libeled party where you may have to pay monetary damages. (Who decides whether something is true or false, damaging or not? 7th amendment: Questions of fact must be decided by juries.) However, as a crime against private property, you can't go to jail for it. In short, it's not the speech per se that's restricted, but the damage to someone's reputation.Freedom From Consequences is not in the Bill of Rights.
NB, this law varies from state to state. I believe California and Virginia, for example, do not disallow such non-compete clauses. So it may well be that your lawyer gave you advice correct for your current state of residence, but if you signed the contract in Kentucky (from the poster's example), that clause might not be enforcable.
Feel free to ask your legal counsel some more questions.
Not for a statistically large population. Like uptime, getting the 99.999% majority is easy enough. It's that last small fraction that's insanely hard. Not everyone in a real Democratic process is reasonable, rational, mentally stable, or even in favor of democracy. In a real Democracy, you can find someone opposed to anything.
First, Federal funding appears to be only the start up money, and was not the political association to which I refer. The primary operational funding for Charter Schools (as I understand it) is not Federal, but provided by the local sponsoring School Board... which, either elected or appointed, is a political unit of local government. Since the Charter Schools are acting as agent for the School Board, it seems arguable that the corporation is a public employee, and to the extent its own employees act to the public service, so too might they be reasonably bound in their ability to claim libel.
Furthermore, stating "The further legal standard is different, specifically as Sullivan explains" is completely misleading, as footnote 23 explicitly declines to "specify categories of persons who would or would not be included," or to delineate the bounds of "official conduct". It does, however, refer over to Barr v. Matteo... the majority ruling of which includes:
As hired by the Charter School, in turn hired by the school board, for the official function of educating the community Rugrats, it would seem that the teachers and staff may have their ability to sue for libel over claims of their mis/mal/non-feasance of such official function thus limited to where actual malice can be proven, or to where it can be shown unrelated to their job. More to the point, the Charter School Corporation itself, having been directly appointed to administer a portion of a school district, is clearly thus restricted in any claims of libel. The teachers on their own might have a much better case... but much shallower pockets to pay a lawyer. =)Of course, I'm not a lawyer. And you're right, it's nowhere near as clear cut as it would be for, say, the state Secretary of Education... or even the elected head of the county school board. But if evidence of malice is not included in court filings, the defense would probably try a summary motion to dismiss pretty quickly.
Since 1964; libel or slander only need "actual malice" for public figures.
Mmmm... not quite accurate under my understanding- although IANAL. Because of the First Amendment protection, standards for libel are much stricter for "public figures"-- which not only includes celebrities, but public officials acting in the capacity of their duties.
So, if I were to publish a claim that you were seen raping a sheep on school property, you would not have to prove actual malice, merely that the claim was false. If I were to claim the same of the school's principal, he would have to prove that it was false, and that I either knew it was false, or that I published the claim without making any effort to check.Since the Charter schools are performing a function traditionally (in this century) performed by state and local government and under state or local contract, any competent lawyer for the parents could make a good case they should be held to the standards for public officials. Which would mean that Charter Schools cannot prove libel simply by proving the allegations false-- they have to prove the parents made the false allegations with such "actual malice".
They may be able to prove this-- but their lawyers will earn their paycheck. Charter Schools USA are probably hoping the parents will bow out, or at least tone down to a more cautious level.
This varies widely by the school district. My senior year in high school required a course in American Government. Since previous courses had outlined the general Three Ring Circus pretty well, the non-AP course spent half a year studying local government: to wit, the school district budget process and school board elections. Students had to sign up to attend at least three board meetings, and give in class presentations before and after about the budget sections scheduled for discussion at the meeting. Beforehand presentations had to have at least one question from each student about the material that might be suitable for asking the board for in class-discussion; whether we asked such at the meeting was up to the individual student-- some did, some didn't. After presentatations summed up the discussion, and any questions asked. It had the merits of getting the students and the parents more involved. It also woke up the school board when regular attendance went from an average of two (the assigned reporter from the paper and the town kook) to around twenty (some students actually got interested in the process, and attended almost all of the meetings). They got over their surprise, but initially were disconcerted when students from their schools showed up as the voters they answered to.
There was also a more colorful incident a few years earlier, when two weeks after a unit on the Unionization movement prior to WWII, my sister's class was given (by mistake) an impossible assignment. (Between the high school library, county library, state capital city library, library of the capital branch of the state college system, and the libraries of two other nationally recognized colleges within 30 miles, a total of thirty-one answers from seventy questions could be found.) The students responded by applying the previous lesson: they formed a union, elected representatives, showed up with red-white-and-blue picket signs, and refused to enter the classroom until an outside moderator-- the principal-- was called in to negotiate with the representatives. The students also called the city paper in advance, who sent a (snickering) reporter and photographer. The teacher refered to it as "a demonstrated major educational success in all directions"-- and was thoroughly delighted to see that the students had inarguably learned something. I think my sister still has the news clipping.
We were taught the system, not only how it worked and why it worked, but how the way checks and balances allow you to challenge and change the system if you have the determination to do so... and how to judge when it was worth the trouble. This is lamentably rarer than it ought to be. This may be in part because of parental preferences-- even most non-fundamentalist zealot parents find it easier in the short run to raise children as sheep rather than wolves.
Should you have kids, you may want to remember your own troubles with the schools, and choose to live in a district that does not aim to produce human sheep.
On the other hand, I'd say that you did exceed the network AUP for your school, and deserved to get a suspension-- although perhaps not the expulsion you evidently got.
If your concern was the freedom of speech, much more direct and legally irreproachable tactics would have been more effective. In your shoes, I would have tried to organize like minded students, found out what local permit requirements are for small public protests (usually none if under 10 people and without electronic amplification), and began staging public readings of careful selections from these overlooked/censored works. (If you can find appropriate related passages from Supreme Court case rulings or Presidential writings to add in the mix, it puts you on better tactical groun
The license, COA Sticker, and Media, yes; the software on the media, not really. (As a legal document, the license might also be considered a forgery; ask a lawyer.) But you expect subtle distinctions like that on Slashdot?
Technically, the term is not right, though.
Incorrect; products using counterfeit trademarks are indeed refered to as counterfeit. A word means what Congress chooses it to mean--nothing more, nothing less. The question is which is to be master -- that's all.
The software is usually a true copy, if unlicensed. However, "Counterfeit" can also refer the the holograms and trademark representations on install media and COA install key stickers. They're not common, but there are some floating around. Those who make them are the serious grade professional criminals, not J. Random Amateur with a CD burner.
I suspect submitting these claims will be much like the Credit Card fraud forms-- after an initial phone or internet report, you get in the mail a return postage paid paper report form to complete, including an affidavit with "UNDER CRIMINAL PENALTY OF PERJURY" in a nicely prominent place on the form. Yes, there will be some fraud... and that may get prosecuted. Just like credit cards.
And again if they need to track down the retailers before handing down the new cd, this will take what? one year, two years before they are charged with something, you also need proof!
Were I running this happy little corner of Microsoft, I would make sure this program was well publicized. It may even become semi-automated-- a refinement of Microsoft's current tactic of politely asking (but not requiring) authentication downloading updates.
Once Microsoft starts getting these reports in large quantities, they can go for the "low-lying fruit"-- target the reseller with 15000 reports of counterfeit sales before the reseller with 15 reports. Most lawyers generally prefer not to go to trial when there are several thousand individually documented charges against their clients.People will never get their free copies unless the one who sold them are very,very stupid and get caught easily!
I don't think that Microsoft would wait for the actual conviction to provide the replacement key and media; after the initial report (perhaps online as above), they send out the paperwork, arriving in 3-7 business days by US Snail. Another week or two for the typical person to fill out the form and get the form and counterfeit media back in the mail. Maybe 3 weeks to process the report back at Microsoft, and confirm the existance of the vendor. Then, send out the replacement key and media, along with a legal form boiling down to "as long as you haven't lied to us, we agree not to prosecute you." Call it two months turnaround if Microsoft is dillegent.
Microsoft is run by greedy bastards, not stupid bastards. This will take out some of the larger dealers in counterfeit product faster than they can now, and hopefully (for Microsoft) more market room for legal copies. Of course, it won't do much for P2P piracy, but that can be a separate battle in the IP Wars.
So is the janitor. All but the smallest businesses still need one, either on staff or as a service on contract. And if he happens to be a competent handyman, he may cover your basic electrical and plumbing needs as well.
Moreover, speaking as an IT employee, I feel I do contribute something a little more than a tech-janitor. Users need to learn how to use their systems... and sometimes, how to learn to do something new. Furthermore, sometimes they'll have trouble describing what the new task is, making automated searches of help files unhelpful... even leaving aside the need to learn how to craft a well-tailored search. A good IT staffer also serves as an internal educational resource, that can provide as-needed training as users discover new needs. Training users who often don't fully understand what their training needs are is an AI-complete problem, and I wish you luck in solving it.
Of course, training produces nothing, transports nothing, and collects nothing for the organization either....
Lombard models do not include built in firewire, so 10.3 will be as late as you can go.
"User", or "Zealot?" I'm currently posting using Safari 1.0.3 (v85.8.1) on OS X.2.8 build 6R73, running on my desktop computer at work: Mac Serial XB2470NKMXD, a Dual 1GHz G4 with assorted bells and whistles. I directly support a deparment with a bit over a dozen other Macs (noticably in the minority), and indirectly support all other Macs in the VP-level-org in my unofficial role as the first contact point for exotic (IE, non-PEBKAC) Mac problems for the rest of the org support people. I'd say that qualifies me as a Mac user. The fact that I am more-or-less equally content for most tasks whether working in Mac, Windows, Linux, or Solaris does suggest I'm not a Mac zealot... which is the flavor you see more commonly on Slashdot.
It's not the random nobody's random posting; it's the news item, reliably reported by CNN and elsewhere, that's behind the random posting making me nervous. Steve Jobs is THE driving force at Apple. Steve's demonstrated response to annoyance with someone is to retaliate, regardless of the someone's formidable market standing. This increases the percieved risk that he will do something to jepardize the current Mac/PC/Linux compatibility.
The main reason I (and the other support people) can tolerate the mixed environment is that Mac software and hardware plays nice with the PC gear. That Jobs is still pulling stunts like this makes it seem much more likely he will do something not only irrational, but platform threatening. And if compatibility forces us to choose one or the other, make no mistake: despite the better security of the Mac Desktop these days, we would ban the Macs except for individuals can prove a PC will not do the job at all. This right now would knock out all but one of my users, who has legacy data in a Mac-only application from a defunct vendor... and who I'm working on an import tool for anyway.
This is a sign Steve can still drive Apple to blindly shoot itself in the foot. I fear he may be able to drive Apple to blindly shoot itself in the head, too.
Fact corrections. Requests for revisions on parts they feel are substantially inacurate. Possibly even a request for a change in title-- I can see how "iCon" would offend Steve, even while the ambiguity of the title fits the ambiguity of his personal character. A request to stop the publication entirely is not only suprising, it's utterly ludicrous, unless Apple thinks there are grounds for a major libel suit against the publisher. Publishers are in the business to publish, and they usually pay advances to authors that once they recieve a manuscript, they can't get back except from the royalties on publication.
An act like this is the gesture of a (petty) tyrant, and as an Apple user makes me nervous about the Apple platform. Would Jobs respond as vindictively (to the limits of his ability) against a software publisher who offended him? Or perhaps against a music label?
Closer to ten cents, depending on how much ice and how stingy they are with the syrup dilution ratio control. Usually these drinks are about half ice (cost ~$0.01/cup in icemaker operation capital costs). Standard coke 5:1 syrup runs about $25ish for a 5 Gallon box (marginally cheaper for corporate bulk than non-chain restaurant purchase, made up for by my last purchase being four years of inflation ago), producing 3840 floz of soda, or 320 servings of 12floz to finish filling the cups, for a cost of about $0.08 per. Cups run about $0.02 each in 24 oz size. Total cost $0.11.
Still a heck of a markup for a $1.00 soda. "The perfect product costs a dime, sells for a dollar, and is both legal and addicting." Pretty durn close.
Here's a short list of things which, if they do, Microsoft can near-eliminate PDF in short order.
Include the Metro Reader in XPsp3 and Longhorn, and as a free download in the Recommended Windows Updates for preXPsp3 and other Windows OSes.
Include the Metro Reader for Macintosh in with the next Mac Office disks, and make it available as a separate free download from Microsoft's Mactopia website.
Provide a version of the Metro Reader for Linux (gasp!), as a free download.
Make the Metro Reader also read PDFs, to ease the migration process. Plug ins for Netscape/Firefox/IE would add to this.
Make a Metro Writer that works better than Acrobat for document creation.
Of course, the "include with" might fall under "tying" and unleash various anti-trust watchdogs, so they might only be able to have it as a free download, with almost as great an effect.
The first two means almost everyone who would need to could get to read Metro. The Linux version might be needed for some of the big enterprise customers, who find the utter universal readability of PDF a major draw for using it; however, Microsoft will be reluctant to do this, as this will necessarily expose the workings more than they usually like, allowing (eventually) competitors for the MetroWriter. Still, the additional Enterprise level penetration will probably make this not only beneficial but necessary.
Making the Metro Reader also a PDF reader has the potential to let them make Acrobat Reader itself less necessary, eroding both Adobe and PDF market exposure that way.
The last part will be the hardest part. Acrobat is not a Bad product, and IMHO Microsoft is not as good as Adobe (and nowhere near Apple) for usabilty design. Nonetheless, the people they hire aren't stupid. "Worst" case, they'll make something mediocre, and merely take a large bite out of the PDF market share. "Best" case, they'll get everything except the OpenOffice users... who neither M$ or AD'ohbe are making money from anyway.
So, would the data carrier's illegal nature in the US prevent digital snails from being elligible for acceptance as a standard? It's not patented... it's just illegal.
On the one hand, Bill's not personally guarding the integrity and privacy of the blackbox file, it's being done by (more corruptable/hackable) software. And on the other, "Ulysses, Peer of Gods In Counsel" he ain't.
Plus, Qui custodet ipsos custodies? Microsoft just created a new target for hackers, both writing to (for hiding their own tracks) and reading from (for extracting information when searching for personal user information.) Not insurmountable problems, but will M$ think to solve them before being bit on the backside?
One step forward, two steps back...