it is fascinating that Justice Cannady, who has undoubtedly reviewed absolutely nothing about this disciplinary case, has put his name to this disbarment order on the day that he was served with the federal civil rights action. What a coincidence.
Yes, such a coincidence.
Because, you know, the courts don't have to notify the parties with a date and time a day or so before the judge hands down an order so everyone involved can be in court to receive it.
Well the first "colony" (convict) ships arrived in Sydney in January 1788, as someone else has pointed out.
There were two reasons for starting up Sydney. The first was the usual strategic land grab, but the second and far more pressing was that America had stopped taking British convicts at that point and there was nowhere else for them to be sent.
Re:Major Plotholes ... Spoiler Alert
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
2. Who put Harvy Dent and what's her name in the oil barrel rooms? Joker said he didn't do it.
Um, and you actually believed the Joker when he said that he didn't do it? As an absolute literal statement, it's true - he phyically couldn't have kidnapped them himself as he was in a cell. But clearly he organised it.
As for the who and how, did you actually watch the last 1/2 hour of the film?
The two cops that Harvey goes after when he leaves the hospital (the old fat cop and the female cop) picked them up from wherever they were (Harvey from the transport after the chase, whatsername from her office maybe?) and drove them to the relevant buildings, where the Joker's henchmen (or mafia guys acting on Joker's orders) took over. Both cops were crooked/indebted the mafia - Harvey complained about them to Gordon several times earlier in the film.
Because it was cops coming for them, Harvey and Whatsit went along with them.
Clearly Harvey knew who picked him up, because he was there, and he tracks the old cop to the bar. The old cop tells Harvey the female cop picked up Whatsit, and he nabs her (the female cop) and makes her call Gordon to set the trap. That all seems pretty hole free to me.
Not true. Granted, there was no *reliable* birth control but a few examples of non-abstinence methods over history have included:
1. Lemons. Apparently in ye oden days some women would insert a post-coital lemon wedge/squirt of juice. The citric acid was supposed to kill off the sperm. 2. Condoms have actually been around for quite some time - they used to be made from pigs intestines and tied on with a ribbon. 3. The rhythm method, as opposed to full time abstinence, has been used for a very long time 4. Some cultures developed a primitive form of IUD insertion - a small pebble in the uterus is effective but can lead to infections (or fall out without you noticing)
Not to mention the many and varied forms of abortion that have been practiced pretty much since humans started thinking.
Terry Pratchett's work spoofs politics in general - corruption, bureaucracy, the foibles of human beings in general, power, corporations, monarchy, religion, racism, crime, insurance, technology, death... I think they're a great way to get young people thinking about the broader issues of the world.
You really don't have to know what (if any) specific events are being referred to to get the jokes. That said (and here's a nod to the person who mentioned the Maskerade/Phantom of the Opera connection) I think I enjoyed the first two Granny Weatherwax books all the more for recognising them as Macbeth and A Midsummer Nights Dream (and yes, obviously the third one is Cinderella).
And don't ever tell a judge they "don't have the authority". You'll be in a higher court soon. Judges don't like people being disrepectful of other judges, not even when the judge in question is wrong...
I dunno, sometimes the people who do that provide excellent light relief for courts and lawyers. Their submissions are always fascinating.
My favourite is this guy (transcript from the Australian High Court, where a lawyerless litigant tries to convince the judges that their appointments are invalid because they weren't made by the Queen of England). He is famous in Australian courts for, among other things, throwing paint at a judge whilst court was in session.
Of course, he's not a lawyer. I think I recall reading somewhere that he's actually a dentist.
Without knowing anything about how the lists are managed in US courts...
Where I am you often don't know which judge you're getting until a day or two before the trial starts. Sometimes it can change at the last minute. So no, it is not flagrantly incompetent to include all that stuff when the judge has read it before.
And are you actually suggesting that lawyers basically tell the judge to go look up the pleadings in a completely separate case? Seriously?
Judges are busy people. If you want them to read something, then it's your job to put it in front of them. The only part of an old case that a lawyer should be quoting is the judgment - and the lawyer should be actually reading/typing out the quote and should have a photocopy of the full judgment with them in court to hand up if necessary. Even if it's one of the classic cases that everyone has memorised.
The reason why your local diocese can't sue you for reprinting parts of the bible is that that particular 2000 year old* creative work has long since passed out of even the craziest of copyright protection periods. It's public domain and has been for a long time.
Scientology's stuff, by contrast, is only a few decades old, we know exactly who wrote it all and when and that person and his heirs have never released it freely.
Now, if you were to record your local priest's sermon, transcribe it and re-publish it as your own work for profit, that would be a different story.
--
*Ok... the New Testament as it exists today is actually quite a bit younger than that, and the Old Testament is obviously quite a bit older. And of course the standard King James translation into English is a lot younger still, but even then it's well within the public domain, but you get the point... right?
Forget the Haneef stuffup, it's things like what happened in the Ul-Haque case that the Feds really don't want the press talking about pre-trial. Or at any other time I'd wager. ASIO wasn't happy with the outcome anyway.
Or a bit of reality. With cheap storage it's easier just to let all the pictures just sit there. People are always coming up with new and potentially scary ways to use data that was collected for an ostensibly innocent purpose.
Consider this story from last year- A guy disappears in Mosman (north of Sydney Harbour)and is thrown off the Gap - a big cliff south of Sydney Harbour. Two hours after he was last seen in Mosman the electronic toll tag in his car crossed the Sydney Harbour Bridge going south. Two seconds after that the electronic toll tag in the main suspect's car followed.
We don't know that because of surveillance, but only because a traffic system installed for a completely different purpose happened to log those tags.
Now ok, more power to the police when they're investigating legitimate murders, but you don't have to be all that paranoid to think of ways that that existing data could be abused.
Someone accessing a website that offered mobile phone services could be after quite different things depending on whether they were accessing it from a computer or from their phone. For starters you'd probably want a lot *less* info on each page if you're accessing it from a phone as you have a smaller screen. You're probably also less willing to do a lot of random browsing through a phone, so the navigation would want to be differently arranged.
As someone else has pointed out, just altering the displayed content by using (eg) the display attribute in css is a sub-optimal response to this, as the user would still be downloading all that content but would simply never see it.
Plus you still need the user-agent string to know which stylesheet to load.
Not quite. The Australian Constitution lists New Zealand as one of the possible sources of colonies that could become states and then says "'Original States' shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.". New Zealand wasn't part of the Commonwealth at its establishment.
At the time of the Constitutional Conventions in the late 19th century it did seem more likely that New Zealand would become a state than West Australia.
No. Except in rare circumstances were retroactive legislation has been written (like some of the new terrorism offences), in Australia its always the law that applied at the time. Even if the old law was more harsh (or more lenient).
Because we are a common law country, we are bound by a superior or equivalent court's interpretation of that law, and later cases are relevant for that, but the legislation is fixed.
The theory, broadly stated, is that people shouldn't have to anticipate changes in the law when deciding how to act. You act in a certain legal environment, and that is the environment that applies when determining the legal consequences of those acts.
Of course, lawyers need to know what the law is currently as well, so that they can give advice to clients before they act.
Well, its always pretty obvious which section of legislation or clause in a contract is the one causing the problem.
When you think about it, the Court is like a debugging tool for legislation, contracts and other legal documents. Its certainly where things get sent when they crash, fail or appear to produce a weird or ambiguous result. If you read cases that involve serious construction issues (ie working out the meaning of contracts or legislation) then you will see some classic hand-debugging/testing techniques at play.
Legislation also has some pretty sophisticated built in version and dependency tracking stuff as well. I give as the first example I could think of the historic notes for the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which is not that dissimilar to what you'd find at the top of any well maintained program.
Believe me, this is vitally important information to any lawyer, as we need to know what the law said when the event in question happened, not what it says now.
We've all read some of the overlong slashdot replies/nerd emails that go to great lengths and painstaking detail, dismantling every aspect of the parent poster's point. Usually these posts include specific references to higher authority - textbooks, articles, past examples and other random websites.
Its exactly this combination of arrogance and pedantry that makes a good lawyer. The obsessive need to be absolutely, comprehensively and demonstratably RIGHT and for everyone to know it.
I knew that when I went to law school. Two things did surprise me though:
1. Law nerds have exactly the same sense of humour as computer nerds (pun or other liguistic trick based jokes, Monty Python etc); and
2. It really is exactly the same thought pattern for legal problem solving as it is for software development problem solving.
A misplaced semi-colon or the use of the wrong synonym can be as destructive in a piece of legislation or a 20 page judgment as it can in any piece of code.
Its things like this that *did* make me go to law school.
I currently work for a judge and he refuses to have a computer in his chambers. Well, ok... there is a computer in his chambers but its unplugged and in the corner, with the screen facing the wall. His secretary prints out his email for him and he dictates his replies onto tape.
The scary thing is that I'm not actually kidding or even exaggerating.
That said, he does have a computer at home and a personal email address that he seems quite capable of using.
Actually... I guy I know who had never eaten vegemite in his life before (immigrant parents) and was sent to get some vegemite-on-turkish-toast for his boss's breakfast (I have that kind of job). He was so entranced by the smell that he tried some and is now a regular consumer. So, the new rule is:
1) don't eat vegemite/marmite unless you've been eating it since you were weaned; or
2) try it on toasted turkish bread, as made by a professional Australian cafe worker.
I'm of the "since weaned" school of vegemite eating, but the introduction of turkish bread to Australian cafes a few years ago was a revelation. Vegemite on turkish toast is, hands down, the best mod-Oz fusion dish ever created.
Oh, and NEVER use as much as you would jam/jelly, peanut butter or any other spread known to humanity. Stick to a thin smear with butter.
No, they wouldn't necessarily look identical - as in this case, one twin was male and the other was a "true hermaphrodite" with ambiguous genitalia, which is what led to their being genetically tested in the first place.
The following isn't necessarily correct as I'm not a geneticist or whatever you'd need to be to be authoritative on this, but that never stops anyone on slashdot, so I'll have a go:
Once the double fertilised embryo splits and the cells start to differentiate (from stem cells into cells with specific functions), some cells will have the genes from one of the sperm and some cells will have the genes from the other sperm. It doesn't follow that in each child the pattern of differentiation for which gene-set's stem cells turn into which types of differentiated cells will necessarily be the same.
In this case it would appear that one of the sperm had an X chromosone and one had a Y chromosone (ie one was male and one was female, as gender is determined by the sperm not the ova). Both kids would have parts of their body which contain male genes and parts which contain female genes. In one child, all the genetalia apparently developed with the Y chromosone gene set and in the other the genetalia developed from a mix, leading to it have both testicular and ovarian tissue. If I'm right, then there was probably about an even chance that one of them could have had all femal genetalia.
Chimeras often have a strange (but generally barely visible) stripey pattern on their skin as there are bands of flesh from each gene-set (same as with the horses mentioned in a post above). I suspect such twins would not necessarily have the same pattern.
If the ova's set of genes had the recessive gene for blue eyes and one sperm had the dominant brown-eyed gene and the other sperm had the recessive blue eyed gene, then the two babies could either both have blue eyes (if the blue-eyed sperm got to do eye colour on both), brown eyes (if the brown eyed sperm got to do eye colour on both) or one could be blue and the other brown (if each got a different sperm's set in the cells that turned into their eyes).
Anyway, that's my hokum for the day.
If you buy a thing that does Y when you do X, and makes no secret of the fact that it does Y when you do X, and the contract under which you purchased it clearly states that it will do Y if you do X, then you can't act all surprised and hurt when you do X anyway, and it does Y.
If Y happens to be "stop working", then too bad. You did X. Deal with it.
If, on the other hand, you did Z, which happens to look like doing X but in fact is not X and the thing mistakenly does Y, then the manufacturer has sold you a defective product, and you can sue them:)
Then there is a purchase of a thing which will allow you to do A and B, both of which are things you are not allowed to do, by law, without a license, C which is unrestricted and D which is at all times illegal.
If the thing is a car, then A is driving around town, B is using it as a taxi, C is getting shiny new wheels installed and D is exceeding the speed limit. Cars aren't much use without a license to do A, but they don't come with one. You have to go elsewhere for that. Cars also make it easy to do D, but D is always illegal.
For a music CD, A is playing the music contained therein for your own enjoyment. B would be making and distributing copies and C could be using the CD to make a creative and interesting mobile to hang from your bedroom ceiling. D would be using the shiny mirrored surface to snort coke off.
CDs happen to come bundled with a license to do A, which is handy.
Likewise with most software - you purchase a thing that is able to do certain things which you aren't permitted to do without a license, and a license to do some of those things.
Now, I could enter into a contract with my flatmate in which he gives me a sum of money and I give him my spare car key and the right to drive it to his mum's house for his weekly Sunday roast chicken dinner. In doing so I have sold him a thing (the key) which gives him the physical ability to use my car any time he wants - but that doesn't mean I've sold him a legal right to do so. His legal use of the car is restricted by our agreement, and any use outside of that - no matter how desperate he is to visit his dying granny in hospital on Wednesday - is unauthorised.
It's legally irrelevant that I have three identical cars and therefore his use of one of them has no impact on my ability to get around town.
I sure as hell haven't sold the thieving bastard the right to hotwire it either - even if it is to go to his mum's on Sunday. And I don't care how good the enormous speakers he's replaced the back seat with are: I didn't authorise it, and I can have him arrested for doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
it is fascinating that Justice Cannady, who has undoubtedly reviewed absolutely nothing about this disciplinary case, has put his name to this disbarment order on the day that he was served with the federal civil rights action. What a coincidence.
Yes, such a coincidence.
Because, you know, the courts don't have to notify the parties with a date and time a day or so before the judge hands down an order so everyone involved can be in court to receive it.
the payback time you mention might be even sooner, if they were gonna burn that fuel to heat the place anyway.
Don't forget the pizza too.
Well the first "colony" (convict) ships arrived in Sydney in January 1788, as someone else has pointed out.
There were two reasons for starting up Sydney. The first was the usual strategic land grab, but the second and far more pressing was that America had stopped taking British convicts at that point and there was nowhere else for them to be sent.
2. Who put Harvy Dent and what's her name in the oil barrel rooms? Joker said he didn't do it.
Um, and you actually believed the Joker when he said that he didn't do it? As an absolute literal statement, it's true - he phyically couldn't have kidnapped them himself as he was in a cell. But clearly he organised it.
As for the who and how, did you actually watch the last 1/2 hour of the film?
The two cops that Harvey goes after when he leaves the hospital (the old fat cop and the female cop) picked them up from wherever they were (Harvey from the transport after the chase, whatsername from her office maybe?) and drove them to the relevant buildings, where the Joker's henchmen (or mafia guys acting on Joker's orders) took over. Both cops were crooked/indebted the mafia - Harvey complained about them to Gordon several times earlier in the film.
Because it was cops coming for them, Harvey and Whatsit went along with them.
Clearly Harvey knew who picked him up, because he was there, and he tracks the old cop to the bar. The old cop tells Harvey the female cop picked up Whatsit, and he nabs her (the female cop) and makes her call Gordon to set the trap. That all seems pretty hole free to me.
Not true. Granted, there was no *reliable* birth control but a few examples of non-abstinence methods over history have included:
1. Lemons. Apparently in ye oden days some women would insert a post-coital lemon wedge/squirt of juice. The citric acid was supposed to kill off the sperm.
2. Condoms have actually been around for quite some time - they used to be made from pigs intestines and tied on with a ribbon.
3. The rhythm method, as opposed to full time abstinence, has been used for a very long time
4. Some cultures developed a primitive form of IUD insertion - a small pebble in the uterus is effective but can lead to infections (or fall out without you noticing)
Not to mention the many and varied forms of abortion that have been practiced pretty much since humans started thinking.
Terry Pratchett's work spoofs politics in general - corruption, bureaucracy, the foibles of human beings in general, power, corporations, monarchy, religion, racism, crime, insurance, technology, death ... I think they're a great way to get young people thinking about the broader issues of the world.
You really don't have to know what (if any) specific events are being referred to to get the jokes. That said (and here's a nod to the person who mentioned the Maskerade/Phantom of the Opera connection) I think I enjoyed the first two Granny Weatherwax books all the more for recognising them as Macbeth and A Midsummer Nights Dream (and yes, obviously the third one is Cinderella).
Not to mention Truckers, Diggers, Wings and the Johnny books which are also all aimed at pre-teens.
Well, in Australia there's the trading post , which used to just be the website of a classifieds paper but which now has auctions as well.
I dunno, sometimes the people who do that provide excellent light relief for courts and lawyers. Their submissions are always fascinating.
My favourite is this guy (transcript from the Australian High Court, where a lawyerless litigant tries to convince the judges that their appointments are invalid because they weren't made by the Queen of England). He is famous in Australian courts for, among other things, throwing paint at a judge whilst court was in session.
Of course, he's not a lawyer. I think I recall reading somewhere that he's actually a dentist.
Without knowing anything about how the lists are managed in US courts...
Where I am you often don't know which judge you're getting until a day or two before the trial starts. Sometimes it can change at the last minute. So no, it is not flagrantly incompetent to include all that stuff when the judge has read it before.
And are you actually suggesting that lawyers basically tell the judge to go look up the pleadings in a completely separate case? Seriously?
Judges are busy people. If you want them to read something, then it's your job to put it in front of them. The only part of an old case that a lawyer should be quoting is the judgment - and the lawyer should be actually reading/typing out the quote and should have a photocopy of the full judgment with them in court to hand up if necessary. Even if it's one of the classic cases that everyone has memorised.
The reason why your local diocese can't sue you for reprinting parts of the bible is that that particular 2000 year old* creative work has long since passed out of even the craziest of copyright protection periods. It's public domain and has been for a long time.
Scientology's stuff, by contrast, is only a few decades old, we know exactly who wrote it all and when and that person and his heirs have never released it freely.
Now, if you were to record your local priest's sermon, transcribe it and re-publish it as your own work for profit, that would be a different story.
--*Ok... the New Testament as it exists today is actually quite a bit younger than that, and the Old Testament is obviously quite a bit older. And of course the standard King James translation into English is a lot younger still, but even then it's well within the public domain, but you get the point... right?
My ipod shuffle did the full cycle once - washer and dryer. Still works fine.
Forget the Haneef stuffup, it's things like what happened in the Ul-Haque case that the Feds really don't want the press talking about pre-trial. Or at any other time I'd wager. ASIO wasn't happy with the outcome anyway.
Or a bit of reality. With cheap storage it's easier just to let all the pictures just sit there. People are always coming up with new and potentially scary ways to use data that was collected for an ostensibly innocent purpose.
Consider this story from last year- A guy disappears in Mosman (north of Sydney Harbour)and is thrown off the Gap - a big cliff south of Sydney Harbour. Two hours after he was last seen in Mosman the electronic toll tag in his car crossed the Sydney Harbour Bridge going south. Two seconds after that the electronic toll tag in the main suspect's car followed.
We don't know that because of surveillance, but only because a traffic system installed for a completely different purpose happened to log those tags.
Now ok, more power to the police when they're investigating legitimate murders, but you don't have to be all that paranoid to think of ways that that existing data could be abused.
And who said capitalism didn't have an answer for everything?
No necessarily so.
Someone accessing a website that offered mobile phone services could be after quite different things depending on whether they were accessing it from a computer or from their phone. For starters you'd probably want a lot *less* info on each page if you're accessing it from a phone as you have a smaller screen. You're probably also less willing to do a lot of random browsing through a phone, so the navigation would want to be differently arranged.
As someone else has pointed out, just altering the displayed content by using (eg) the display attribute in css is a sub-optimal response to this, as the user would still be downloading all that content but would simply never see it.
Plus you still need the user-agent string to know which stylesheet to load.
Not quite. The Australian Constitution lists New Zealand as one of the possible sources of colonies that could become states and then says "'Original States' shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.". New Zealand wasn't part of the Commonwealth at its establishment.
At the time of the Constitutional Conventions in the late 19th century it did seem more likely that New Zealand would become a state than West Australia.
No. Except in rare circumstances were retroactive legislation has been written (like some of the new terrorism offences), in Australia its always the law that applied at the time. Even if the old law was more harsh (or more lenient).
Because we are a common law country, we are bound by a superior or equivalent court's interpretation of that law, and later cases are relevant for that, but the legislation is fixed.
The theory, broadly stated, is that people shouldn't have to anticipate changes in the law when deciding how to act. You act in a certain legal environment, and that is the environment that applies when determining the legal consequences of those acts.
Of course, lawyers need to know what the law is currently as well, so that they can give advice to clients before they act.
Well, its always pretty obvious which section of legislation or clause in a contract is the one causing the problem.
When you think about it, the Court is like a debugging tool for legislation, contracts and other legal documents. Its certainly where things get sent when they crash, fail or appear to produce a weird or ambiguous result. If you read cases that involve serious construction issues (ie working out the meaning of contracts or legislation) then you will see some classic hand-debugging/testing techniques at play.
Legislation also has some pretty sophisticated built in version and dependency tracking stuff as well. I give as the first example I could think of the historic notes for the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which is not that dissimilar to what you'd find at the top of any well maintained program.
Believe me, this is vitally important information to any lawyer, as we need to know what the law said when the event in question happened, not what it says now.
You're absolutely right.
We've all read some of the overlong slashdot replies/nerd emails that go to great lengths and painstaking detail, dismantling every aspect of the parent poster's point. Usually these posts include specific references to higher authority - textbooks, articles, past examples and other random websites.
Its exactly this combination of arrogance and pedantry that makes a good lawyer. The obsessive need to be absolutely, comprehensively and demonstratably RIGHT and for everyone to know it.
I knew that when I went to law school. Two things did surprise me though:
1. Law nerds have exactly the same sense of humour as computer nerds (pun or other liguistic trick based jokes, Monty Python etc); and
2. It really is exactly the same thought pattern for legal problem solving as it is for software development problem solving.
A misplaced semi-colon or the use of the wrong synonym can be as destructive in a piece of legislation or a 20 page judgment as it can in any piece of code.
Its things like this that *did* make me go to law school.
I currently work for a judge and he refuses to have a computer in his chambers. Well, ok... there is a computer in his chambers but its unplugged and in the corner, with the screen facing the wall. His secretary prints out his email for him and he dictates his replies onto tape.
The scary thing is that I'm not actually kidding or even exaggerating.
That said, he does have a computer at home and a personal email address that he seems quite capable of using.
You can't even buy Fosters Lager in most parts of Australia. Most Australians wouldn't touch it.
That said, Fosters have bought out and continued on with a lot of good labels, including the Cascade and Carlton brands.
What? oh yeah... and they own VB now too.
Actually... I guy I know who had never eaten vegemite in his life before (immigrant parents) and was sent to get some vegemite-on-turkish-toast for his boss's breakfast (I have that kind of job). He was so entranced by the smell that he tried some and is now a regular consumer. So, the new rule is:
1) don't eat vegemite/marmite unless you've been eating it since you were weaned; or
2) try it on toasted turkish bread, as made by a professional Australian cafe worker.
I'm of the "since weaned" school of vegemite eating, but the introduction of turkish bread to Australian cafes a few years ago was a revelation. Vegemite on turkish toast is, hands down, the best mod-Oz fusion dish ever created.
Oh, and NEVER use as much as you would jam/jelly, peanut butter or any other spread known to humanity. Stick to a thin smear with butter.
No, they wouldn't necessarily look identical - as in this case, one twin was male and the other was a "true hermaphrodite" with ambiguous genitalia, which is what led to their being genetically tested in the first place. The following isn't necessarily correct as I'm not a geneticist or whatever you'd need to be to be authoritative on this, but that never stops anyone on slashdot, so I'll have a go: Once the double fertilised embryo splits and the cells start to differentiate (from stem cells into cells with specific functions), some cells will have the genes from one of the sperm and some cells will have the genes from the other sperm. It doesn't follow that in each child the pattern of differentiation for which gene-set's stem cells turn into which types of differentiated cells will necessarily be the same. In this case it would appear that one of the sperm had an X chromosone and one had a Y chromosone (ie one was male and one was female, as gender is determined by the sperm not the ova). Both kids would have parts of their body which contain male genes and parts which contain female genes. In one child, all the genetalia apparently developed with the Y chromosone gene set and in the other the genetalia developed from a mix, leading to it have both testicular and ovarian tissue. If I'm right, then there was probably about an even chance that one of them could have had all femal genetalia. Chimeras often have a strange (but generally barely visible) stripey pattern on their skin as there are bands of flesh from each gene-set (same as with the horses mentioned in a post above). I suspect such twins would not necessarily have the same pattern. If the ova's set of genes had the recessive gene for blue eyes and one sperm had the dominant brown-eyed gene and the other sperm had the recessive blue eyed gene, then the two babies could either both have blue eyes (if the blue-eyed sperm got to do eye colour on both), brown eyes (if the brown eyed sperm got to do eye colour on both) or one could be blue and the other brown (if each got a different sperm's set in the cells that turned into their eyes). Anyway, that's my hokum for the day.
If you buy a thing that does Y when you do X, and makes no secret of the fact that it does Y when you do X, and the contract under which you purchased it clearly states that it will do Y if you do X, then you can't act all surprised and hurt when you do X anyway, and it does Y.
:)
If Y happens to be "stop working", then too bad. You did X. Deal with it.
If, on the other hand, you did Z, which happens to look like doing X but in fact is not X and the thing mistakenly does Y, then the manufacturer has sold you a defective product, and you can sue them
Then there is a purchase of a thing which will allow you to do A and B, both of which are things you are not allowed to do, by law, without a license, C which is unrestricted and D which is at all times illegal.
If the thing is a car, then A is driving around town, B is using it as a taxi, C is getting shiny new wheels installed and D is exceeding the speed limit. Cars aren't much use without a license to do A, but they don't come with one. You have to go elsewhere for that. Cars also make it easy to do D, but D is always illegal.
For a music CD, A is playing the music contained therein for your own enjoyment. B would be making and distributing copies and C could be using the CD to make a creative and interesting mobile to hang from your bedroom ceiling. D would be using the shiny mirrored surface to snort coke off.
CDs happen to come bundled with a license to do A, which is handy.
Likewise with most software - you purchase a thing that is able to do certain things which you aren't permitted to do without a license, and a license to do some of those things.
Now, I could enter into a contract with my flatmate in which he gives me a sum of money and I give him my spare car key and the right to drive it to his mum's house for his weekly Sunday roast chicken dinner. In doing so I have sold him a thing (the key) which gives him the physical ability to use my car any time he wants - but that doesn't mean I've sold him a legal right to do so. His legal use of the car is restricted by our agreement, and any use outside of that - no matter how desperate he is to visit his dying granny in hospital on Wednesday - is unauthorised.
It's legally irrelevant that I have three identical cars and therefore his use of one of them has no impact on my ability to get around town.
I sure as hell haven't sold the thieving bastard the right to hotwire it either - even if it is to go to his mum's on Sunday. And I don't care how good the enormous speakers he's replaced the back seat with are: I didn't authorise it, and I can have him arrested for doing it.