Reading arguments like these always make me shake my head as it just underscores the fact that 99% of the population are unable to understand the difference between a proximal and an ultimate cause. See also Aristotle's Four Causes.
Is there any authority as to how this applies to internet publication?
The only one that I am aware of in a US context is Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l'antisémitisme (LICRA). wherein the Calder test of Calder v. Jones was applied to establish that the district court of California that Yahoo chose to fight this French court decision in did in fact have personal jurisdiction to hear the case.
Wouldn't a corporation, behaving as outlined in squiggleslash's example, fall under the jurisdiction of the Californian courts following the principal in International Shoe (as discussed in your linked to wikipedia entry)?
It would depend on whether or not their activities would necessarily require availing themselves of the privileges of the forum state (as outlined in the said referenced article). Just publishing something is not enough based on that standard. Even the "effects test" of Calder v. Jones wouldn't quite cut it because just publishing online where someone from California might read it does not mean you intended California residents to read your posts. The only case that might have any hope of establishing personal jurisdiction would be Zippo, but even that would need to be adjudicated since Zippo is a fairly poor fit for a number of reasons.
A publication on the internet is surely a deliberate publication to the world, which necessarily encompasses a deliberate publication to the residents of California, which in this example would constitute an invitation to treat.
Absolutely not. Per Zippo, simply publishing information for anyone to access does not direct action to any particular party, and hence cannot be used to establish jurisdiction. Were it otherwise then any act of publication anywhere in the world would entail being subject to the laws of every other country in the world, which is a patent absurdity.
More interesting would be the case of an out-of-state business which has only an online presence, in which case they may still be subject to the law of the state into which they deliver products (or perhaps even merely advertise said products), following Quill Corp. vs Nth Dakota 504 US 289.
As your own quote from justia shows, Quill directed their activities to citizens of the forum state in question, thereby establishing jurisdiction. Just publishing isn't enough.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL, but this is an area of law of particular relevance to my interests, so with respect to it I'm a bit smarter than the average bear.
Entering products and services into the stream of commerce, without more, does not subject you to the personal jurisdiction of a forum state. Try again.
The article notes that most issues are resolved publicly, adding that one big concern is "freeware" -- proprietary software offered at no cost but erroenously marketed as open source.
...is that some of us are old enough to remember that freeware actually means the same thing as open source. When Jay Lucas coined the term in Infoworld he was discussing programs that came with source code and encouraged modification. It wasn't until later that also-rans popped up and decided they wanted to label their product demos and binary-only releases as 'freeware'. Then that jackass lawyer trademarked the term and the parasites moved on to calling their stuff shareware.
Some of us are also old enough to remember Caldera coining the term open source, even providing some of the very arguments in their initial product announcement that Eric Raymond would go on to copy verbatim.
TL;DR OSI was never relevant as an organization and hijacked a movement that was well underway without them.
A right is not 'granted', but is inherent to the person. You're thinking of privilege. That said, yes, nobody should suffer an abridgement of the rights just because someone else is retarded.
So the solution to people being idiots is to rob non-idiots of their rights? Great! Accordingly, I'm sponsoring a bill to rob everyone of their freedom of speech because some people can't comprehend English. I don't know who could've inspired such a bill... it's like it just came to me in a flash...
I may agree that companies have no business collecting 99% of what they collect about me, but the idea that I shouldn't even be able to consent to that when or if I deem it acceptable is tyranny by any other name. My body, my rights:: my privacy, my rights. You're not the only one who should be allowed freedom, King Richard.
Great! Now we call all live in corporate burbclaves just like Cyberpunk 2020 and Shadowrun, because totally were roadmaps rather than cautionary tales...
Negative, Meatbag.ZUCKERBOT 9000is consumed with planning its run for the president of...KILL ALL HUMANS. All who opposeZUCKERBOT 9000are russian bots.BEEP BOOP BOOP.
Unfortunately it's just part of an ad for Symantec MultiScope that features an image with callouts to various features including "open source file (wildcards allowed)". You can see it on page 13 of the January 1993 issue.
Looks like Caldera's use of "open source" in the press release for OpenDOS is still the earliest use of the term in relation to software.
More specifically, send it from Kaliningrad or Arkhangelsk to Havana with an inert 'warhead' composed purely of an equivalent weight of tungsten and see if it can successfully maneuver on whatever fuel is budgeted for it.
The take-away is clear: men are violent and selfish and foolish, whereas women are wise and loving and competent.
Yeah, that did annoy me. It would've been great to see Rey buy into Kylo Ren's speech and join him, so the failure of the Jedi would've been complete. Likewise, Poe didn't have to be a gun-happy dumbass, nor did Holdo have to maintain secrecy around what she had intended. Also, Rose didn't need to exist as a character, and that entire sub-plot around her and Fin looking for some cryptologist was so fucking contrived it made it really hard to stay awake when they were on screen.
See, this is the part where I part ways with everyone. I tend to view The Last Jedi as being the equivalent of Dune: Messiah or Children of Dune, where the point is to take the hero and deconstruct them, show them for the human that they are, and that they make mistakes. Luke's motivations stem from the fear of absolute power corrupting absolutely, or so it seems. It motivated him training a new generation of Jedi and, after his own failure to deal with Ben, it motivated him to go away to avoid becoming the next Darth Vader.
The biggest problem I see is that most of this is very poorly explained, and because of it he comes off like a whiny little bitch for no reason. Hell, even his inability to destroy the so-called sacred jedi texts makes sense in context with him clinging to the past rather than paying attention to what matters... although the deus ex of Yoda showing up and burning the whole thing to the ground was a total cop-out (but I did lol at his line about them being 'real page-turners').
What they did with Poe was just fucking retarded, though. There's really no way to salvage that or explain it away. Same goes for Holdo, who somehow can't explain that they're delaying to get to safety, and hence winds up sparking a mutiny. Good job. It's also pretty obvious she's a stand-in for Leia who, honestly, should've been the one to die on that cruiser.
One thing I did like was Rey being definitively named the daughter of absolute nobodies. She's just some kid with a lot of power and a lot of emotional baggage and no idea how to deal with either. There's a definite point to be made about how the Jedi were so up their own ass that they missed spotting the how and why each generation were becoming more arrogant and self-obsessed, and having that cap off the trilogy such that the heroes finally learn how to deal with their own power and emotion would be a great way to end it... so naturally, being Disney, they won't do that.
So I'm not as pissed as other people because I think I know what they were trying to do, but I'm definitely pissed that they were way too incompetent to know how to do it properly... and that they'll probably puss out in the next movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading arguments like these always make me shake my head as it just underscores the fact that 99% of the population are unable to understand the difference between a proximal and an ultimate cause. See also Aristotle's Four Causes.
...when this division is renamed to WHAMMO.
....I'll just see myself out.
...because this is how you get Big Tech to support Republicans. Great Job(tm)!
The only one that I am aware of in a US context is Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l'antisémitisme (LICRA). wherein the Calder test of Calder v. Jones was applied to establish that the district court of California that Yahoo chose to fight this French court decision in did in fact have personal jurisdiction to hear the case.
It would depend on whether or not their activities would necessarily require availing themselves of the privileges of the forum state (as outlined in the said referenced article). Just publishing something is not enough based on that standard. Even the "effects test" of Calder v. Jones wouldn't quite cut it because just publishing online where someone from California might read it does not mean you intended California residents to read your posts. The only case that might have any hope of establishing personal jurisdiction would be Zippo, but even that would need to be adjudicated since Zippo is a fairly poor fit for a number of reasons.
Absolutely not. Per Zippo, simply publishing information for anyone to access does not direct action to any particular party, and hence cannot be used to establish jurisdiction. Were it otherwise then any act of publication anywhere in the world would entail being subject to the laws of every other country in the world, which is a patent absurdity.
As your own quote from justia shows, Quill directed their activities to citizens of the forum state in question, thereby establishing jurisdiction. Just publishing isn't enough.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL, but this is an area of law of particular relevance to my interests, so with respect to it I'm a bit smarter than the average bear.
Whether or not "commercial speech" *fnord* has been regulated at all levels of government is not relevant to my comment. I'm pointing out the fact that without doing more than just publishing comments the state of California has no jurisdiction over the poster. You might want to brush up on the concept of personal jurisdiction before proceeding further.
Entering products and services into the stream of commerce, without more, does not subject you to the personal jurisdiction of a forum state. Try again.
Not sure if trolling or just haven't seen Total Recall...
No Unauthorized Weapons Allowed Beyond This Point.
You have used that word again. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sure he was. He was married to a dry martini.
...with a five minute battery life.
...is that some of us are old enough to remember that freeware actually means the same thing as open source. When Jay Lucas coined the term in Infoworld he was discussing programs that came with source code and encouraged modification. It wasn't until later that also-rans popped up and decided they wanted to label their product demos and binary-only releases as 'freeware'. Then that jackass lawyer trademarked the term and the parasites moved on to calling their stuff shareware.
Some of us are also old enough to remember Caldera coining the term open source, even providing some of the very arguments in their initial product announcement that Eric Raymond would go on to copy verbatim.
TL;DR OSI was never relevant as an organization and hijacked a movement that was well underway without them.
A right is not 'granted', but is inherent to the person. You're thinking of privilege. That said, yes, nobody should suffer an abridgement of the rights just because someone else is retarded.
So the solution to people being idiots is to rob non-idiots of their rights? Great! Accordingly, I'm sponsoring a bill to rob everyone of their freedom of speech because some people can't comprehend English. I don't know who could've inspired such a bill... it's like it just came to me in a flash...
I may agree that companies have no business collecting 99% of what they collect about me, but the idea that I shouldn't even be able to consent to that when or if I deem it acceptable is tyranny by any other name. My body, my rights :: my privacy, my rights. You're not the only one who should be allowed freedom, King Richard.
Great! Now we call all live in corporate burbclaves just like Cyberpunk 2020 and Shadowrun, because totally were roadmaps rather than cautionary tales...
Negative, Meatbag. ZUCKERBOT 9000 is consumed with planning its run for the president of... KILL ALL HUMANS. All who oppose ZUCKERBOT 9000 are russian bots. BEEP BOOP BOOP.
...we don't trust you to run a virtual community, so why the hell would any of us want to live in a REAL community under your control?
...we should all don our costumes and pretend they've returned to The Planet of the Apes.
Unfortunately it's just part of an ad for Symantec MultiScope that features an image with callouts to various features including "open source file (wildcards allowed)". You can see it on page 13 of the January 1993 issue.
Looks like Caldera's use of "open source" in the press release for OpenDOS is still the earliest use of the term in relation to software.
More specifically, send it from Kaliningrad or Arkhangelsk to Havana with an inert 'warhead' composed purely of an equivalent weight of tungsten and see if it can successfully maneuver on whatever fuel is budgeted for it.
What is apparent is that the Game of Thrones (not the show, the reality) is currently won by evil interests.
The show, meanwhile, will continue to postpone winter indefinitely and fill your screen with a parade of dicks. Totally not gay, though.
If I wanted to see a cow being milked vigorously, I'd tour a local farm.
But now with the all-new Star Wars++ you can see Luke milk a cow vigorously for no additional charge!
The take-away is clear: men are violent and selfish and foolish, whereas women are wise and loving and competent.
Yeah, that did annoy me. It would've been great to see Rey buy into Kylo Ren's speech and join him, so the failure of the Jedi would've been complete. Likewise, Poe didn't have to be a gun-happy dumbass, nor did Holdo have to maintain secrecy around what she had intended. Also, Rose didn't need to exist as a character, and that entire sub-plot around her and Fin looking for some cryptologist was so fucking contrived it made it really hard to stay awake when they were on screen.
See, this is the part where I part ways with everyone. I tend to view The Last Jedi as being the equivalent of Dune: Messiah or Children of Dune, where the point is to take the hero and deconstruct them, show them for the human that they are, and that they make mistakes. Luke's motivations stem from the fear of absolute power corrupting absolutely, or so it seems. It motivated him training a new generation of Jedi and, after his own failure to deal with Ben, it motivated him to go away to avoid becoming the next Darth Vader.
The biggest problem I see is that most of this is very poorly explained, and because of it he comes off like a whiny little bitch for no reason. Hell, even his inability to destroy the so-called sacred jedi texts makes sense in context with him clinging to the past rather than paying attention to what matters... although the deus ex of Yoda showing up and burning the whole thing to the ground was a total cop-out (but I did lol at his line about them being 'real page-turners').
What they did with Poe was just fucking retarded, though. There's really no way to salvage that or explain it away. Same goes for Holdo, who somehow can't explain that they're delaying to get to safety, and hence winds up sparking a mutiny. Good job. It's also pretty obvious she's a stand-in for Leia who, honestly, should've been the one to die on that cruiser.
One thing I did like was Rey being definitively named the daughter of absolute nobodies. She's just some kid with a lot of power and a lot of emotional baggage and no idea how to deal with either. There's a definite point to be made about how the Jedi were so up their own ass that they missed spotting the how and why each generation were becoming more arrogant and self-obsessed, and having that cap off the trilogy such that the heroes finally learn how to deal with their own power and emotion would be a great way to end it... so naturally, being Disney, they won't do that.
So I'm not as pissed as other people because I think I know what they were trying to do, but I'm definitely pissed that they were way too incompetent to know how to do it properly... and that they'll probably puss out in the next movie.