Methinks they should base the attorney's fees awarded on what the plaintiffs spent on attorney and court costs. I'm sure the defendant would have been happy to spend more (yes, she won, but she obviously couldn't have known that at the onset), and the plaintiffs have clearly indicated what they believe the case was worth to try and work through the courts...
(Even better would be to force the RIAA to pay the defendant what they were attempting to collect in the first place - do that only once or twice and all of these cases go away.)
Faraday cages do little to stop professional snoopers
Actually, what I had in mind was encasing the entire house from below grade to the roof's peaks in a wire mesh. The bad guys wouldn't be able to listen, but your cell phones wouldn't work. Paint every wall (interior and exterior) with metallic paint and you've got a pretty sterile environment RF wise.
I agree that wired LAN is more secure than WiFi. But can't you do some pretty scary signal reconstruction by reading electromagnetic noise coming off your network cable?
Yes, and that's not all. The technology exists for somebody outside your house to capture the exact image on your screen by the EMR emitted. (I'm not sure if LCDs are as vulnerable as CRTs). They have the technology to read the EM noise from your CPU. Given enough money and motivation everything is at risk.
This is where the concept of threat model comes in. WHO is after your data? FSB? MI6? Then you'd better get STP, apply metallic paint to every wall and line your ceiling with a Faraday cage. That drunk next door who once saw sneakers and now considers himself to be the world's top master hacker spy? Then encrypt your wireless network with a 1 bit key and a WEP key of "1".
If you are worried about the "professional tier" of data thieves, the kind who will try to spy on you by capturing stray EM from your cat 5 cables then you are either paranoid or asking the wrong people for help.
When Windows 95 came out I was working a small retail shop (not any of the chains). We were seeing problems with one specific motherboard coupled with one specific CD drive which, when attempting to install Windows 95 would do something that killed the system in the middle of the install, with the board rendered unable to boot. Happened at least three times IIRC.
he thing is that lawyers, being lawyers, are adept at staying out of trouble even if by only a hair.
Isn't this in and of itself indicative that the system is overly complex? It is indisputable that money talks and justice is for sale. Regardless of merit, cases are (dare I say?) usually (if not usually, then at least frequently) decided by who has more money to fight?
Yes, Nifong was disbarred, but this is a rarity and involved a case that was front-page news across the country for months. What % of the national population knew about the Duke lacrosse incident? What % have ever heard of SCO? What % know that SCO, IBM and Novell are all in the same industry? If Nifong hadn't been disbarred then the profession would have taken a major black eye. If the attorneys involved in this case aren't disbarred, who - outside of/. readers - would know or even care?
I have my own personal feelings here - not only should the lawyers be kicked out but their masters should be personally punished. If your dog bites somebody on your command then you'd better believe that you'll face the music. If you are a corporate exec who issues the sic 'em command to your lawyer then you had better be ready to face the music. Personally.
But my personal thoughts are irrelevant, and these lawyers are likely to get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. In fact, in Michigan (and probably many other states) a lawyer is held responsible if he doesn't pursue a case to the utmost, and bringing about frivolous charges are just part of the game. How many cases are filed alleging racial discrimination where there is clearly zero evidence, let alone plausibility that it ever happened? Those lawyers are never punished for making false allegations, if the charges don't stick then all of the lawyers and judges say "oh well, no harm in trying".
AllParadox, a retired lawyer who has been following the case closely, predicts that Judge K. will issue an order sanctioning SCO's lawyers. Some of them could end up being disbarred . It will serve them right. This case has been an incredible misuse of the courts.
One can only hope, but this is very unlikely. The legal system is loathe to expel their own - when judge Susan Chrzanowski was caught having an affair with a defense attorney who was a) pleading cases before her b) given a virtual monopoly on court-appointed indigent cases, c) murdered his wife the day after having yet another sexual rendezvous with the judge and the judge was caught in several lies regarding her involvement her only punishment was 17 months paid "vacation" (they called it a suspension, but she collected around $200,000 and full benefits), six months unpaid leave, and instead of being disbarred was allowed to return to the bench. Retired state justice Charles Levin who oversaw Susan's review originally ruled that she had done nothing whatsoever that merited punishment.
If cases like this don't merit any punishment from the ranks of the legal system, why would a couple of lawyers playing hardball in a case that most americans don't understand or care about be prohibited from paying more dues to the various lawyer associations?
"In all, TMI showed that--contrary to common belief--a disaster inside a nuclear reactor does not necessarily lead to a disaster outside the reactor." - http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi10.htm
Now go back and reconcile the facts with the claim "Let's just say the radioactive blob was well on its way to China."
Last time I checked, China was on the other side of the exterior containment barriers. Perhaps you are thinking of some other China?
What they found at the bottom was shocking. Let's just say the radioactive blob was well on its way to China.
Source? My source (the guy who designed TMI and several other reactors and was team lead for the post-incident investigation) says they found no such thing. They found rubble at the bottom of the reactor. Not a hole "well on its way to China".
Must everything decided by a judge be due to partisanship?
No, but unfortunately it is. To the detriment of society as a whole. The concept of a fair, neutral and impartial judiciary remains just that, a concept.
Just because the U.S. Supreme Court as of late has appeared to be much more partisan than it usually is, does not correlate to an increase of the Judicial Branch stepping outside of its self-imposed restriction of staying out of political issues.
Anybody who thinks the USSC isn't partisan isn't paying attention when it comes time to replace. The justices themselves time their retirements so a president favorable to their causes might appoint a replacement. If the justices were after fair, impartial rule of codified law this would not be necessary in their eyes, but they themselves seek to manipulate the interpretation of what should otherwise be straightforward law.
Most judges enjoy their tenure and wouldn't risk being impeached just to get their jollies off by "making the other party look bad."
The risk of judicial impeachment is nil, regardless on how they decide. Even if a judge had a 100% rate of overturn on his decisions he would still be allowed to keep his seat on the bench. (That would be another nice change... if a judge's interpretation of the law is consistently wrong he should automatically be thrown off the bench.)
As a judge, one must try to remain as detached as possible, always considering the desperate balance between the individual and societal rights, and federal and state powers.
That's the ideal, but they never do. The vested power and immunity of the judiciary is manifest at the lowest ranks - how many civil judges do you suppose have always enforced the law fair and equitably across the board as opposed to, say, fixing a ticket for a friend, family member or campaign contributor?
While I agree 100% with the decision, I can't help but wonder if this judge (a Clinton appointee) made a ruling based on his true conscience and understanding of Constitutional law or if the thought "gee, if I strike this down I can make the Republicans look bad" crossed his mind, even if only for an instant.
Courts these days have very little to do with a codified rule of law - look at all of the Supreme Court cases where major changes in national course have been made by a single person voting along party lines.
This ruling is inevitably going to be appealed, since the government has unlimited funds to drag things through court indefinitely (zero accoutability) and will eventually be brought before the USSC where it will probably be ultimately overturned on a 5-4 vote along party lines. Personally, I think that any case that isn't decided by a margin of at least three should never be allowed to be considered as precedent, and that if a judicial panel can't rule by at least a margin of two then the law should be immediately thrown out as being too vague.
If every new subdivision was required to have fiber then every neighborhood between the city the the exburbs would be within a mile or two of said fiber runs. Everybody wins.
Next think you know a judge somewhere is going to require all computers to keep Hz by Hz screenshots so it can be proven beyond any shadow of any doubt whether or not you were looking at that photo of Marlon Brando. Video cards have RAM, and isn't is discoverable evidence to know EXACTLY what you were viewing and when?
And those people who live in the suburbs or exburbs will have to make those decisions for themselves. However, a LOT of the sprawl will be slowed (or halted) if you demand that the developers provide the services and have the infrastructure in place BEFORE they can bulldoze everything in sight. Ever run into a traffic jam caused by 5,000 new homes suddenly being fed by the same two lane road? Or, after 10 years of rezoning 1 house/3 acre parcels into 40 condos per acre suddenly the city says "oh yeah, now we need to build several schools and, by the way, the low taxes that brought you out here are now going to be tripled.
Given the extraordinary public subsidies, law exemptions and bypasses given to the telecommunication companies they need to get their butts in gear and make broadband as available as the original POTS networks. The various states are to blame as well - if they had mandated back in the 80s/90s that new subdivisions couldn't be built unless they had provided for gas, electric, water, sewer AND modern communications then we wouldn't have this problem today.
If AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and ilk refuse to upgrade their rural networks then pull the subsidies and make them compete on their own merits. At the VERY least they would provide WiFi broadband at reasonable rates.
If I was hospitalized, on a ventilator but with use of my limbs then I'd want a laptop balanced on my stomach - I can touchtype and wouldn't even need to look at the keyboard.
For those who can't do this, they have systems out there that allow you to spell words just by looking at the letters and blinking, which then convert to speech.
And yet the stock -increases-?
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
SCOX - The SCO Group, Inc. (Public, NASDAQ:SCOX)
+0.06 (4.00%) Aug 10 - Close
After Hours: 1.55 -0.01 (-0.48%)
Why didn't the stock plunge towards zero after this ruling?
Also, there is the general principle that people should read the new contract in its entirety
How many people read the original contract in its entirety? Of those who do, how many understand what the contract says?
highlights and other shortcuts should not be employed to avoid such a reading
What possible objection could anybody have to be told "by the way, this is what we changed"?
but like many well meaning politicians I think your proposed solution will have many unintended negative consequences.
Hypothesize one.
The legal system is far and away too complex for the majority of the country. Lawyers have an average IQ around 130. The general population has an average IQ of 100. Lawyers write and interpret laws for other lawyers. What possible chance does your average person off the street have to understand even a significant portion?
It isn't that contracts can't be changed, but that contracts shouldn't be changed without clearly highlighting and specifying the specific changes. Make all the changes you like, but make sure that all parties have at least a fighting chance to know what is different.
It should be illegal to impose unilateral changes to a contract without clearly highlighting and specifying the specific changes. In other words, simply providing a new copy of the contract should be considered to be a clear and unquestionable violation of basic contract law.
Consumers aren't lawyers. They can not be expected to read and understand all terms. Furthermore, the odds of a customer spotting a minor change (yet one that significantly alters the relationship) are slim to none. With no awareness (and full knowledge of that lack of awareness) there is no meaningful offer and therefore no meaningful acceptance. In other words there is no meeting of the minds.
Most of these unilateral changes are of the exclusive benefit to the provider - nothing of value is offered to the user of the service. In other words, the alteration of the contract (which brings about a new contract) is utterly and completely devoid of consideration, which should likewise be enough to render the contract null and void. The contracts are entirely too one-sided.
Many (if not most) of these changes fall well within the realm of being unconscionable. Again, enough to declare the contracts null and void. (If they would only revoke the license of any lawyer who signs off on any contract that violates these simple tenets it would take only a few days before fairness would reign).
Slashdot Mirror
(Even better would be to force the RIAA to pay the defendant what they were attempting to collect in the first place - do that only once or twice and all of these cases go away.)
Gotta love the people... they elect SUCH nice people into office to make these decisions.
Actually, what I had in mind was encasing the entire house from below grade to the roof's peaks in a wire mesh. The bad guys wouldn't be able to listen, but your cell phones wouldn't work. Paint every wall (interior and exterior) with metallic paint and you've got a pretty sterile environment RF wise.
Yes, and that's not all. The technology exists for somebody outside your house to capture the exact image on your screen by the EMR emitted. (I'm not sure if LCDs are as vulnerable as CRTs). They have the technology to read the EM noise from your CPU. Given enough money and motivation everything is at risk.
This is where the concept of threat model comes in. WHO is after your data? FSB? MI6? Then you'd better get STP, apply metallic paint to every wall and line your ceiling with a Faraday cage. That drunk next door who once saw sneakers and now considers himself to be the world's top master hacker spy? Then encrypt your wireless network with a 1 bit key and a WEP key of "1".
If you are worried about the "professional tier" of data thieves, the kind who will try to spy on you by capturing stray EM from your cat 5 cables then you are either paranoid or asking the wrong people for help.
When Windows 95 came out I was working a small retail shop (not any of the chains). We were seeing problems with one specific motherboard coupled with one specific CD drive which, when attempting to install Windows 95 would do something that killed the system in the middle of the install, with the board rendered unable to boot. Happened at least three times IIRC.
Hardware problem caused by software? I know Windows 95 caused hardware problems before, but never with a hinge.
Isn't this in and of itself indicative that the system is overly complex? It is indisputable that money talks and justice is for sale. Regardless of merit, cases are (dare I say?) usually (if not usually, then at least frequently) decided by who has more money to fight?
I have my own personal feelings here - not only should the lawyers be kicked out but their masters should be personally punished. If your dog bites somebody on your command then you'd better believe that you'll face the music. If you are a corporate exec who issues the sic 'em command to your lawyer then you had better be ready to face the music. Personally.
But my personal thoughts are irrelevant, and these lawyers are likely to get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. In fact, in Michigan (and probably many other states) a lawyer is held responsible if he doesn't pursue a case to the utmost, and bringing about frivolous charges are just part of the game. How many cases are filed alleging racial discrimination where there is clearly zero evidence, let alone plausibility that it ever happened? Those lawyers are never punished for making false allegations, if the charges don't stick then all of the lawyers and judges say "oh well, no harm in trying".
One can only hope, but this is very unlikely. The legal system is loathe to expel their own - when judge Susan Chrzanowski was caught having an affair with a defense attorney who was a) pleading cases before her b) given a virtual monopoly on court-appointed indigent cases, c) murdered his wife the day after having yet another sexual rendezvous with the judge and the judge was caught in several lies regarding her involvement her only punishment was 17 months paid "vacation" (they called it a suspension, but she collected around $200,000 and full benefits), six months unpaid leave, and instead of being disbarred was allowed to return to the bench. Retired state justice Charles Levin who oversaw Susan's review originally ruled that she had done nothing whatsoever that merited punishment.
If cases like this don't merit any punishment from the ranks of the legal system, why would a couple of lawyers playing hardball in a case that most americans don't understand or care about be prohibited from paying more dues to the various lawyer associations?
Now go back and reconcile the facts with the claim "Let's just say the radioactive blob was well on its way to China."
Last time I checked, China was on the other side of the exterior containment barriers. Perhaps you are thinking of some other China?
Source? My source (the guy who designed TMI and several other reactors and was team lead for the post-incident investigation) says they found no such thing. They found rubble at the bottom of the reactor. Not a hole "well on its way to China".
No, but unfortunately it is. To the detriment of society as a whole. The concept of a fair, neutral and impartial judiciary remains just that, a concept.
Anybody who thinks the USSC isn't partisan isn't paying attention when it comes time to replace. The justices themselves time their retirements so a president favorable to their causes might appoint a replacement. If the justices were after fair, impartial rule of codified law this would not be necessary in their eyes, but they themselves seek to manipulate the interpretation of what should otherwise be straightforward law.The risk of judicial impeachment is nil, regardless on how they decide. Even if a judge had a 100% rate of overturn on his decisions he would still be allowed to keep his seat on the bench. (That would be another nice change... if a judge's interpretation of the law is consistently wrong he should automatically be thrown off the bench.)
That's the ideal, but they never do. The vested power and immunity of the judiciary is manifest at the lowest ranks - how many civil judges do you suppose have always enforced the law fair and equitably across the board as opposed to, say, fixing a ticket for a friend, family member or campaign contributor?
Courts these days have very little to do with a codified rule of law - look at all of the Supreme Court cases where major changes in national course have been made by a single person voting along party lines.
This ruling is inevitably going to be appealed, since the government has unlimited funds to drag things through court indefinitely (zero accoutability) and will eventually be brought before the USSC where it will probably be ultimately overturned on a 5-4 vote along party lines. Personally, I think that any case that isn't decided by a margin of at least three should never be allowed to be considered as precedent, and that if a judicial panel can't rule by at least a margin of two then the law should be immediately thrown out as being too vague.
Thanks for sharing. I own you now, weasel boy.
If every new subdivision was required to have fiber then every neighborhood between the city the the exburbs would be within a mile or two of said fiber runs. Everybody wins.
This ain't rocket science. Get a statistician, show that the juries in EDoT have a demonstrable bias and move the case.
Next think you know a judge somewhere is going to require all computers to keep Hz by Hz screenshots so it can be proven beyond any shadow of any doubt whether or not you were looking at that photo of Marlon Brando. Video cards have RAM, and isn't is discoverable evidence to know EXACTLY what you were viewing and when?
And those people who live in the suburbs or exburbs will have to make those decisions for themselves. However, a LOT of the sprawl will be slowed (or halted) if you demand that the developers provide the services and have the infrastructure in place BEFORE they can bulldoze everything in sight. Ever run into a traffic jam caused by 5,000 new homes suddenly being fed by the same two lane road? Or, after 10 years of rezoning 1 house/3 acre parcels into 40 condos per acre suddenly the city says "oh yeah, now we need to build several schools and, by the way, the low taxes that brought you out here are now going to be tripled.
If AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and ilk refuse to upgrade their rural networks then pull the subsidies and make them compete on their own merits. At the VERY least they would provide WiFi broadband at reasonable rates.
For those who can't do this, they have systems out there that allow you to spell words just by looking at the letters and blinking, which then convert to speech.
SCOX - The SCO Group, Inc. (Public, NASDAQ:SCOX) +0.06 (4.00%) Aug 10 - Close After Hours: 1.55 -0.01 (-0.48%) Why didn't the stock plunge towards zero after this ruling?
~sigh~
How many people read the original contract in its entirety? Of those who do, how many understand what the contract says?
What possible objection could anybody have to be told "by the way, this is what we changed"?
Hypothesize one.
The legal system is far and away too complex for the majority of the country. Lawyers have an average IQ around 130. The general population has an average IQ of 100. Lawyers write and interpret laws for other lawyers. What possible chance does your average person off the street have to understand even a significant portion?
It isn't that contracts can't be changed, but that contracts shouldn't be changed without clearly highlighting and specifying the specific changes. Make all the changes you like, but make sure that all parties have at least a fighting chance to know what is different.