They would not have no obligations, provided they didn't advertise to Massachusetts residents, such as via the Internet, national newspapers or television networks. Massachusetts courts would not have jurisdiction to place fines on the businesses, nor could a Mass. resident sue them for breach of security in a Mass. court. They could sue them in the state court where the business is, but it would then apply its own laws.
Advertising, via any of those means does not consitute a substanal nexus. A company can do all of those things and still cannot be held to MA's law. A MA resident can sue, and the company and refuse to show, but no one will ever get their money. If the company does show, Federal courts will throw out MA's law. Stuff like this has already happened; been there done that with mail order, and again with internet sales.
As I said above, advertising to residents of a state is sufficient to "reach into" the state and give the courts there jurisdiction over you, according to the Supreme Court. Their actions - advertising - did occur within the boundaries of Massachusetts.
You're wrong.
Conversely, if a company based in one state advertises in another state, sells goods to residents of the other state, ships goods there, takes orders from citizens there, etc., why shouldn't they be held to the same consumer protection standards of business that are based there?
Because Federal law says where State's laws end (namely, at the boundries of a state). That they advertise is irrelevent. I can advertise all I want in MA, and it doesn't make me subject to MA law.
Should I have to abide by MA law if the resident physically travels to my state? How about if they mail me a piece of paper in liue of showing up? Now how about the send me the same information which is on the paper electronically?
Yup, in none of those cases do I need to care about what MA says. And the US Supreme Court has already said as much.
Ya, and how exactly will CA make you pay the fine? My understanding is that if you fail to abide by CA laws, CA will punish any CA resident / business that buys from you, because they know they can't really come after you. But if this were actually challenged in court, I have a feeling the feds would tell CA they can't do that.
I have no problem when the range is limited to the few hundred feet around my AP. I have a bigger problem when anyone on the planet now has information that would be impractical for them to have otherwise. If someone wants to publish the location of their wifi to an entire city, that's cetainly their right. But I choose not to, and the only people that really know are those in the immediate area around me, and the rare person that just happens to be in the neighborhood.
Using someone else's network without their authorization is only illegal if it's encrypted.
Really, show me that the law states that. The best analogy would be the old cordless analog phones. They weren't encypted, but people certainly got outrages when that fact was used to make phone calls from the house without asking the owner of the line.
Its still a stupid quote. Publishing the information will cause some people that would have never otherwise gone down a particular road to do so to try and use or hack the wifi.
Actually the courts would nullify it. That's why when you get new credit card terms, they give you the optoin not to accept (which closes your account). But to say "we're changing the terms, and now you're stuck with them" is not an opiton.
Funny you mention the "move into the 21st century with the rest of us" bit. I've been taking a seminar on terrorism and one (of the many) reasons the middle east and (some of) the Muslims that inhabit it are so prone to violence is because they've had considerably less time to modernize. Europe and America had hundreds of years to turn from an agrarian society into a modern one. The middle eastern world has had considerably less time
Excuse me? The birthplace of civilization, the first known farming areas, have had LESS time to modernize?
Sometimes people leave their glasses in the car, or aren't wearing contacts
I can honestly say I don't give a damn. Whatever the reason, they are still holding other people up unnessarly.
sometimes the lighting is just bad enough that there's an inconvenient glare
Hmm, I don't think I've ever seen this particular problem.
Some people (like me) genuinely take a long time deciding - I will be thinking about what I want to order from the time I get in the line, but occasionally can't decide between two items, and eventually have to decide to be dissatisfied with which ever decision I make.
So don't get in the line until you've decided. As far as not being satisified either way... you should leave rather than buy something you don't want. I can't imagine why I'd buy something I knew I'd dislike.
What handset should someone have bought instead between when iPhone with iPhone OS 2.0 came out (July 2008) and when Motorola Droid came out (November 2009)?
They could simply not have purchased a new handset at all. You act as if one HAS to have one or the other.
I want a PC and its comparative openness, but some of my favorite video game genres are horribly underrepresented on PC.
So what? You're not always going to be able to get what you want, so you'll have to learn to deal with it.
If a car has pulled part way out (which, btw is legal in the many places where you're allowed to enter the intersection when its green), he has not broken any law, and is simply waiting for traffic to clear. At some point, all the lights will be red and he'll be safely through. I'm not aware of any locality though where a pedestrian can ignore a ped signal, or cross against the light if a ped signal is not installed.
So we've established that there are actually many cases where the car is not doing anything wrong, but AFAIK in 100% of the US what you did was wrong.
The law makes sense in the most common and rational situation. Police also generally use common sense.
The law also requires proof, not "I say he did it." Police also seem universally lacking common sense anyway.
Sure, there are stupid officers from time to time, and its unfair if you get nailed for it, but the law generally works as written.
The number of "make laws as a money grab" seem to disagree with you.
Think about the extreme situation. If you're going the speed limit, into an intersection and the light turns yellow, if you have to take the time to think about whether or not you'll stop safely... it probably isn't safe to stop.
And an officer can come along and simply state "nah, he could have stopped safely." And you're guilty, end of story. That's corruption in my book, not law.
On the other hand, if you pull out of a driveway near an intersection, you're barely moving, and the light turns yellow, you're not going to make it. Just stop.
Your point here is irrelevent, since we're discussing proof for choosing to get through the intersection.. so talking about NOT going through it is useless.
There are grid-lock laws to deal with the situation where you enter the intersection when the guy in front of you stopped. In a traffic jam, they really do want you to wait until the intersection is clear before you enter it. I've waited out greens before... it's all you can do. Driving at rush-hour in the city will always be frustrating.
Yes, and those laws are stupid, and do nothing to fix the problem (i.e., get traffic flowing like it should. THAT is hard and costs the city money... the stupid laws do nothing and NET the city money). Nevermind you don't necessarly know if you'll be able to clear beforehand or not. You may be 3/4 of the way through before you discover that things are stopping... and there's no way to predict it.
What you're basically suggesting is that we treat each green light like a stop sign. Do you really think THAT will help grid lock? I don't.
And federal directly contradicts where the state says cars need to stop. You don't seem to be getting it, the feds laid out what is allowed at intersections, and the states aren't free to ignore it. The state doesn't have a right to throw down a stop line to begin with.
My state law also says that regardless of an engineering study, the highest speed limit for any state road is 50MPH. Its illegal, because federal law says speed limits can ONLY be established by an engineering study.
Of course; the linux community has nothing else to do while they sit in their moms basement, but MS has work to do which they hope will earn them profits.
It might be an xbox over a ps3. You might pick Jack-in-the-Box over Long John Silvers.
And yet 99% of the time when I go out to eat, it's a place that doesn't even advertise, enough though there are plenty of options that do. (LGS is out simply because I don't like seafood.. advertising never seems to overcome my dislike for fish).
But advertising has played a part in every single purchase you've ever made. And the "beauty" of it is you don't even realize it.
I see a lot of dell commercials, and hp ones. Yet when I bought a laptop, I went with a Sony Vaio. Because my wifes worked really well, and it had the best price per feature. (I never even KNEW sony many computers until I met my wife).. so again, where is this effect of advertising?
After all, what made you believe you had to have either an xbox or ps3 in the first place?
In my case, having already played most of the resident evil series (which again, I never heard of, but was exposed to in college), I wanted to play RE5. And I knew of the RROD issues on the xbox firsthand (my friend got one, and is now on his 4th). So I got a PS3. So far, most of the games I got I had never heard of anywhere, I looked at the box in the store and thought I'd give it a shot. So if you want to count box art as advertising, but I didn't go in looking for a particular game.
At some point, it doesn't even matter what specific product an advertisement is for. The purpose is not just to make you buy that product, but to make absolutely sure that you buy something.
Then its failly pretty badly. When Walmart advertises diapers, it doesn't make me want to go to walmart (actually nothing does, but that's another matter).
So again, I'm not really sure what you're point is.. especially when I've been turned off from some companies for overagressive marketing. I remember them all right... and purposefully avoid buying their products.
Usually though I don't even pay attention to the ads.
Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts could say "you can't advertise here unless you follow all our laws", since we're considering that an action within the state
No it can't. The Commerce Clause in the US Constitution would forbid this.
They would not have no obligations, provided they didn't advertise to Massachusetts residents, such as via the Internet, national newspapers or television networks. Massachusetts courts would not have jurisdiction to place fines on the businesses, nor could a Mass. resident sue them for breach of security in a Mass. court. They could sue them in the state court where the business is, but it would then apply its own laws.
Advertising, via any of those means does not consitute a substanal nexus. A company can do all of those things and still cannot be held to MA's law. A MA resident can sue, and the company and refuse to show, but no one will ever get their money. If the company does show, Federal courts will throw out MA's law. Stuff like this has already happened; been there done that with mail order, and again with internet sales.
As I said above, advertising to residents of a state is sufficient to "reach into" the state and give the courts there jurisdiction over you, according to the Supreme Court. Their actions - advertising - did occur within the boundaries of Massachusetts.
You're wrong.
Conversely, if a company based in one state advertises in another state, sells goods to residents of the other state, ships goods there, takes orders from citizens there, etc., why shouldn't they be held to the same consumer protection standards of business that are based there?
Because Federal law says where State's laws end (namely, at the boundries of a state). That they advertise is irrelevent. I can advertise all I want in MA, and it doesn't make me subject to MA law.
Should I have to abide by MA law if the resident physically travels to my state? How about if they mail me a piece of paper in liue of showing up? Now how about the send me the same information which is on the paper electronically?
Yup, in none of those cases do I need to care about what MA says. And the US Supreme Court has already said as much.
Ya, and how exactly will CA make you pay the fine? My understanding is that if you fail to abide by CA laws, CA will punish any CA resident / business that buys from you, because they know they can't really come after you. But if this were actually challenged in court, I have a feeling the feds would tell CA they can't do that.
I have no problem when the range is limited to the few hundred feet around my AP. I have a bigger problem when anyone on the planet now has information that would be impractical for them to have otherwise. If someone wants to publish the location of their wifi to an entire city, that's cetainly their right. But I choose not to, and the only people that really know are those in the immediate area around me, and the rare person that just happens to be in the neighborhood.
Using someone else's network without their authorization is only illegal if it's encrypted.
Really, show me that the law states that. The best analogy would be the old cordless analog phones. They weren't encypted, but people certainly got outrages when that fact was used to make phone calls from the house without asking the owner of the line.
No, its more like you're driving around, seeing a big screen tv in someone's window, then posting that fact on the internet, with address.
Ok, so now tell us your address.
Its still a stupid quote. Publishing the information will cause some people that would have never otherwise gone down a particular road to do so to try and use or hack the wifi.
I think you're severly overestimating the number of "disgruntled users" that would return their PS3.
Actually the courts would nullify it. That's why when you get new credit card terms, they give you the optoin not to accept (which closes your account). But to say "we're changing the terms, and now you're stuck with them" is not an opiton.
Ya know what, I don't really care. We're in 2010 now, its time to stop taking fairy tails so seriously.
Funny you mention the "move into the 21st century with the rest of us" bit. I've been taking a seminar on terrorism and one (of the many) reasons the middle east and (some of) the Muslims that inhabit it are so prone to violence is because they've had considerably less time to modernize. Europe and America had hundreds of years to turn from an agrarian society into a modern one. The middle eastern world has had considerably less time
Excuse me? The birthplace of civilization, the first known farming areas, have had LESS time to modernize?
That's a pretty stupid thing to believe.
Sometimes people leave their glasses in the car, or aren't wearing contacts
I can honestly say I don't give a damn. Whatever the reason, they are still holding other people up unnessarly.
sometimes the lighting is just bad enough that there's an inconvenient glare
Hmm, I don't think I've ever seen this particular problem.
Some people (like me) genuinely take a long time deciding - I will be thinking about what I want to order from the time I get in the line, but occasionally can't decide between two items, and eventually have to decide to be dissatisfied with which ever decision I make.
So don't get in the line until you've decided. As far as not being satisified either way... you should leave rather than buy something you don't want. I can't imagine why I'd buy something I knew I'd dislike.
What handset should someone have bought instead between when iPhone with iPhone OS 2.0 came out (July 2008) and when Motorola Droid came out (November 2009)?
They could simply not have purchased a new handset at all. You act as if one HAS to have one or the other.
I want a PC and its comparative openness, but some of my favorite video game genres are horribly underrepresented on PC.
So what? You're not always going to be able to get what you want, so you'll have to learn to deal with it.
So is that all it takes to get someone to actually read the law?
Its called mutcd. Stop being lazy and learn something for yourself.
Or is there a Federal law that says "you do not have to stop anywhere except at an intersection when the light turns red"?
Pretty much, ya.
If a car has pulled part way out (which, btw is legal in the many places where you're allowed to enter the intersection when its green), he has not broken any law, and is simply waiting for traffic to clear. At some point, all the lights will be red and he'll be safely through. I'm not aware of any locality though where a pedestrian can ignore a ped signal, or cross against the light if a ped signal is not installed.
So we've established that there are actually many cases where the car is not doing anything wrong, but AFAIK in 100% of the US what you did was wrong.
The law makes sense in the most common and rational situation. Police also generally use common sense.
The law also requires proof, not "I say he did it." Police also seem universally lacking common sense anyway.
Sure, there are stupid officers from time to time, and its unfair if you get nailed for it, but the law generally works as written.
The number of "make laws as a money grab" seem to disagree with you.
Think about the extreme situation. If you're going the speed limit, into an intersection and the light turns yellow, if you have to take the time to think about whether or not you'll stop safely... it probably isn't safe to stop.
And an officer can come along and simply state "nah, he could have stopped safely." And you're guilty, end of story. That's corruption in my book, not law.
On the other hand, if you pull out of a driveway near an intersection, you're barely moving, and the light turns yellow, you're not going to make it. Just stop.
Your point here is irrelevent, since we're discussing proof for choosing to get through the intersection.. so talking about NOT going through it is useless.
There are grid-lock laws to deal with the situation where you enter the intersection when the guy in front of you stopped. In a traffic jam, they really do want you to wait until the intersection is clear before you enter it. I've waited out greens before... it's all you can do. Driving at rush-hour in the city will always be frustrating.
Yes, and those laws are stupid, and do nothing to fix the problem (i.e., get traffic flowing like it should. THAT is hard and costs the city money... the stupid laws do nothing and NET the city money). Nevermind you don't necessarly know if you'll be able to clear beforehand or not. You may be 3/4 of the way through before you discover that things are stopping... and there's no way to predict it.
What you're basically suggesting is that we treat each green light like a stop sign. Do you really think THAT will help grid lock? I don't.
And federal directly contradicts where the state says cars need to stop. You don't seem to be getting it, the feds laid out what is allowed at intersections, and the states aren't free to ignore it. The state doesn't have a right to throw down a stop line to begin with.
My state law also says that regardless of an engineering study, the highest speed limit for any state road is 50MPH. Its illegal, because federal law says speed limits can ONLY be established by an engineering study.
Why unsalted, I don't know.
Gah, always needing to add salt. Typical American, don't you care about your heart??
How can the state prove it would have been safe to stop if someone chose to "proceed with caution?"
There is a version of T2 which includes audio for the visually impaired. Quite entertaining actually.
Of course; the linux community has nothing else to do while they sit in their moms basement, but MS has work to do which they hope will earn them profits.
It might be an xbox over a ps3. You might pick Jack-in-the-Box over Long John Silvers.
And yet 99% of the time when I go out to eat, it's a place that doesn't even advertise, enough though there are plenty of options that do. (LGS is out simply because I don't like seafood.. advertising never seems to overcome my dislike for fish).
But advertising has played a part in every single purchase you've ever made. And the "beauty" of it is you don't even realize it.
I see a lot of dell commercials, and hp ones. Yet when I bought a laptop, I went with a Sony Vaio. Because my wifes worked really well, and it had the best price per feature. (I never even KNEW sony many computers until I met my wife).. so again, where is this effect of advertising?
After all, what made you believe you had to have either an xbox or ps3 in the first place?
In my case, having already played most of the resident evil series (which again, I never heard of, but was exposed to in college), I wanted to play RE5. And I knew of the RROD issues on the xbox firsthand (my friend got one, and is now on his 4th). So I got a PS3. So far, most of the games I got I had never heard of anywhere, I looked at the box in the store and thought I'd give it a shot. So if you want to count box art as advertising, but I didn't go in looking for a particular game.
At some point, it doesn't even matter what specific product an advertisement is for. The purpose is not just to make you buy that product, but to make absolutely sure that you buy something.
Then its failly pretty badly. When Walmart advertises diapers, it doesn't make me want to go to walmart (actually nothing does, but that's another matter).
So again, I'm not really sure what you're point is.. especially when I've been turned off from some companies for overagressive marketing. I remember them all right... and purposefully avoid buying their products.
Usually though I don't even pay attention to the ads.