>I suspect that the only reason they got their refund and apology was because it was blown out of proportion.
They only got the refund after someone in senior management got word that one of the counter clerks had actually refused a request from an FBI agent to issue a new ticket. I guess the potential liability that comes from having faced down the FBI was much greater than the exposure to a civil suit from the passenger....
1. The person who made the initial complaint should be forced to make a public apology. Why is this person's identity being protected? Why was the family denied the right to confront their accusers? Two of the family members are attorneys. I guarantee there will be civil suits against both the airline and the person who made the complaint, and the smart money is on the family winning.
2. FBI agents were much too polite, merely "requesting" that the airline re-book their travel. Now they probably didn't have the authority, but they still should have *ordered* it when the airline refused. Keep in mind they tried to refuse to issue tickets even *after* the scandal broke. How do cops treat YOU when YOU refuse their initial "polite" request?
>Showing your boobs (like what is done in San Francisco and other places shown in girls gone wild) >will get you registered too.. So will having sex in public (like a teen parking..)
Cite please, of someone on a Sex Offenders list who is there due to simple public nudity.
Gibbons: I am feeling very optimistic about the film.
Media Executive places a neat stack of cash on Gibbons' desk
Gibbons: I have been pleased with everything I have seen, and every successive thing I see makes me feel better.
Media Executive places a second, even larger stack of cash on the desk. Camera pans to reveal a very expensive looking home theatre system, complete with an attactive female bartender.
Gibbons: I've seen parts of it now three or four times, and I can still watch them again very happily.
The "incredible expense" argument is a form of FUD.
You've got a market cap of $75 million before SOX is a serious concern -- you have competent attorneys and accountants -- SOX is not the most complicated part of the process -- and if you can't handle this, you're really in trouble.
>No, the automatic protection allows for criminal prosecution. If you want to sue yourself you have to register.
Sort of. The trouble you'd run into, is that the law allows Apple to make that registration at *any time*, like, say, on the morning of your hearing. Even without the statutory damages, they *can* sue you, and there is no limit to what they can ask for as damages. It's good to have things registered because that constitutes "Notice", which provides the plaintiff with an automatic advantage in terms of preponderance of evidence,
The misconception all over the thread, is that without the right to seek statutory damages, Apple would be limited in the amount of civil damages they could seek. This is untrue, and I can assure you that the amount of "actual damages" that Apple's very expensive and capable legal team would confront you with over OSX, would utterly dwarf even the "per infringement" maximum of statutory damages. And even if they sought statutory damages, which they still would do, that would basically amount to nothing but a "tip" on top of the really stupendous civil damages, which would seek liquidation and civil forfeiture of, 100% of your assets. Willful and knowing copyright infringement on an institutional scale is really not a good idea, registration or not.
IANALBIHSLAWITF, consult a lawyer before you do something boneheaded like putting yourself on the defendant end of a civil suit with Apple.
>Obviously the notion that they can't provide the IP information for security reasons is bogus.
That determination is for the higher court to make. I read it more like a judge saying "That's all you've got, an IP address? You need better evidence in my court. Dismissed."
I might be inclined to make the same judgment if you brought me and IP address from a log in a leaf node and said this was proof without reasonable doubt of a crime. Why didn't the original request ask for a name? I certainly would expect a court to respond more favorably to an accusation of a person, than one against a number.
I agree that the stated rationale is bogus, but I disagree about the strength of the plaintiff's case.
It might have been a better strategy, if the people at Wikipedia had alerted the state offices that they believed someone was spoofing their addresses... (If they investigated themselves, they would have tripped over their own clown shoes.)
>I question whether he gave up his citizenship to attend school in Indonesia, as has been posited.
There is not even a legal mechanism by which an unemancipated minor can give up his citizenship, nor is it possible for a person under the age of twenty-three to lose his citizenship in the manner Berg describes.
> [I]f we are to be a country bound by the rule of law, that issue must be resolved.
Please describe the "issue" by making your case in the context of the rule of law. Are you suggesting that President-elect Obama has not complied with some law or lawful order? Or do you believe he must respond to every baseless fabrication that targets him?
He proved that he was born in the USA, and that proof has been substantiated. What more do you think he can do?
Going back to the parent, someone makes a statement to the effect that not all Muslims meet a certain bigoted stereotype. Bigot replies that "They aren't Muslims."
Do you have evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the State Department and the State of Hawaii?
If you do not, why can't you convince yourself of the weakness of your position?
What rule do you assert has not been "followed to the letter?"
The constructive argument at work here is quite simple:
Obama is a U.S. Citizen. There is no evidence that this citizenship was conferred artificially. Therefore Obama is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen.
The sole authority for these two premises is the State Department, which didn't argue on Berg's behalf. This means there was never anything that Berg could question.
In order to believe that Obama was born in Kenya, one must accept a conspiracy theory that almost rivals anything in the JFK world. State and Federal agencies in on the fraud starting in '61. An ordinary housewife leaving the country and re-entering, with the efficiency and secrecy of the best spies. Several newspapers. The U.S. Senate. The Bush Administration. The RNC *AND* the DNC, and the McCain campaign, several courts and even the U.S. Supreme Court, all in on a coverup to protect the forgers of Obama's birth certificate.
There are people who still believe this, but I wonder why none has gone so far as to accuse the perpetrators of the fraud by bringing a criminal case. Start with the Notary Public whose name appears on the back of the COLB that was posted. Also, right from the beginning, you can name at least two state officials in Hawaii, and probably should name the Governor of Hawaii and possibly the Secretary of State, since all of these people would be actively involved in the fraud.
But I don't see Berg making any criminal accusations, where he would have to go under oath personally and face potentially serious consequences if he has no evidence on which to base the accusations.
Donofrio, on the other hand, claims that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's amusing that some people supported both Berg and Donofrio, even though they make contradictory claims. Then it becomes clear that we are dealing with people who simply oppose Obama, and any vehicle that allows them to voice that opposition is accepted by them.
Or maybe the whole thing is a sham and there is a gigantic conspiracy inside and outside the government to keep it covered up.
Your call. Unless you are in the military, there is no law that says you personally are obligated to "consider the President legally elected." Basically, any action the government takes is subject to redress by you. Good luck.
Okay: If it can be shown that a particular citizen's citizenship was conferred artificially, then that person is a naturalized citizen, otherwise the citizenship was from birth.
>Mr. Hopey Changey is filling his cabinet with storied Washington insiders.
His choices: 1. People with no experience (and you would call them "hacks" and still "insiders". 2. People from a former Democratic Administration. He could have hired people from the Carter Administration, but you would call them "cronies." The only other choices come from the Clinton Administration.
I think the only way you'd be satisfied is if he appointed people from the Bush Administration. Even then, I'm sure you'd voice your opposition. There is nobody Obama can pick that would meet with your approval.
Tell you what: Come out of anonymity, and for one of the remaining cabinet positions, tell us who you think he *should* choose, and why. I'm tired of the reactionary approach to denouncing Obama. He's not seeking the approval of "Anonymous Coward," you know.
We shred DVDs. It's a consumer-level shredder. It cuts the disc all to hell and is even pretty thorough at removing the medium from the substrate, or whatever the nomenclature is. There are consumer shredders that will do discs, but ours was definitely not cheap. A GBC Shredmaster "DOD" model. (We're not a defense shop, we're a research hospital/medical college, among other things.)
"TO think that The US Federal Government will give taxpayer money to banks et al to the tune of $2 Trillion with NIL oversight and NIL public disclosure is extremely dangerous and shortsighted."
Well, maybe the people at CERN should have diversified, and invested in a bank, et. al.
Slashdot Mirror
>I suspect that the only reason they got their refund and apology was because it was blown out of proportion.
They only got the refund after someone in senior management got word that one of the counter clerks had actually refused a request from an FBI agent to issue a new ticket. I guess the potential liability that comes from having faced down the FBI was much greater than the exposure to a civil suit from the passenger....
1. The person who made the initial complaint should be forced to make a public apology. Why is this person's identity being protected? Why was the family denied the right to confront their accusers? Two of the family members are attorneys. I guarantee there will be civil suits against both the airline and the person who made the complaint, and the smart money is on the family winning.
2. FBI agents were much too polite, merely "requesting" that the airline re-book their travel. Now they probably didn't have the authority, but they still should have *ordered* it when the airline refused. Keep in mind they tried to refuse to issue tickets even *after* the scandal broke. How do cops treat YOU when YOU refuse their initial "polite" request?
>Showing your boobs (like what is done in San Francisco and other places shown in girls gone wild)
>will get you registered too.. So will having sex in public (like a teen parking..)
Cite please, of someone on a Sex Offenders list who is there due to simple public nudity.
When you hear the word "bourgeois" in a 19th century context, substitute the word "professional" for a better understanding.
Gibbons: I am feeling very optimistic about the film.
Media Executive places a neat stack of cash on Gibbons' desk
Gibbons: I have been pleased with everything I have seen, and every successive thing I see makes me feel better.
Media Executive places a second, even larger stack of cash on the desk. Camera pans to reveal a very expensive looking home theatre system, complete with an attactive female bartender.
Gibbons: I've seen parts of it now three or four times, and I can still watch them again very happily.
I guess, maybe, if it's "bomb threats." What if it's Tube Bar / Bart-Moe prank calls instead of bombs?
Moe's Tavern, Moe speaking...
Is Ms. Hanjib there? Her first name's Anita.
I know I'm a prick, but I have fun with this one. It makes me smile when people actually get it. Scary.
The "incredible expense" argument is a form of FUD.
You've got a market cap of $75 million before SOX is a serious concern -- you have competent attorneys and accountants -- SOX is not the most complicated part of the process -- and if you can't handle this, you're really in trouble.
>No, the automatic protection allows for criminal prosecution. If you want to sue yourself you have to register.
Sort of. The trouble you'd run into, is that the law allows Apple to make that registration at *any time*, like, say, on the morning of your hearing.
Even without the statutory damages, they *can* sue you, and there is no limit to what they can ask for as damages. It's good to have things registered because that constitutes "Notice", which provides the plaintiff with an automatic advantage in terms of preponderance of evidence,
The misconception all over the thread, is that without the right to seek statutory damages, Apple would be limited in the amount of civil damages they could seek. This is untrue, and I can assure you that the amount of "actual damages" that Apple's very expensive and capable legal team would confront you with over OSX, would utterly dwarf even the "per infringement" maximum of statutory damages. And even if they sought statutory damages, which they still would do, that would basically amount to nothing but a "tip" on top of the really stupendous civil damages, which would seek liquidation and civil forfeiture of, 100% of your assets. Willful and knowing copyright infringement on an institutional scale is really not a good idea, registration or not.
IANALBIHSLAWITF, consult a lawyer before you do something boneheaded like putting yourself on the defendant end of a civil suit with Apple.
It is not required, but there are limits to the amount of Statutory Damages that can be sought.
Worthy of note, there are no such limits on the extent and nature of CIVIL damages that can be sought.
Ponder that carefully before you think about going into a civil suit with Apple as the plaintiff and you, clearly in the wrong.
>Obviously the notion that they can't provide the IP information for security reasons is bogus.
That determination is for the higher court to make. I read it more like a judge saying "That's all you've got, an IP address? You need better evidence in my court. Dismissed."
I might be inclined to make the same judgment if you brought me and IP address from a log in a leaf node and said this was proof without reasonable doubt of a crime. Why didn't the original request ask for a name? I certainly would expect a court to respond more favorably to an accusation of a person, than one against a number.
I agree that the stated rationale is bogus, but I disagree about the strength of the plaintiff's case.
It might have been a better strategy, if the people at Wikipedia had alerted the state offices that they believed someone was spoofing their addresses...
(If they investigated themselves, they would have tripped over their own clown shoes.)
>Regardless of whether he was born in the Hawaii,
He was.
>I question whether he gave up his citizenship to attend school in Indonesia, as has been posited.
There is not even a legal mechanism by which an unemancipated minor can give up his citizenship, nor is it possible for a person under the age of twenty-three to lose his citizenship in the manner Berg describes.
> [I]f we are to be a country bound by the rule of law, that issue must be resolved.
Please describe the "issue" by making your case in the context of the rule of law.
Are you suggesting that President-elect Obama has not complied with some law or lawful order?
Or do you believe he must respond to every baseless fabrication that targets him?
He proved that he was born in the USA, and that proof has been substantiated. What more do you think he can do?
*Yawn*
Going back to the parent, someone makes a statement to the effect that not all Muslims meet a certain bigoted stereotype. Bigot replies that "They aren't Muslims."
This is known in rhetoric and logical reasoning as "The No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Do you have evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the State Department and the State of Hawaii?
If you do not, why can't you convince yourself of the weakness of your position?
What rule do you assert has not been "followed to the letter?"
The constructive argument at work here is quite simple:
Obama is a U.S. Citizen.
There is no evidence that this citizenship was conferred artificially.
Therefore Obama is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen.
The sole authority for these two premises is the State Department, which didn't argue on Berg's behalf. This means there was never anything that Berg could question.
In order to believe that Obama was born in Kenya, one must accept a conspiracy theory that almost rivals anything in the JFK world. State and Federal agencies in on the fraud starting in '61. An ordinary housewife leaving the country and re-entering, with the efficiency and secrecy of the best spies. Several newspapers. The U.S. Senate. The Bush Administration. The RNC *AND* the DNC, and the McCain campaign, several courts and even the U.S. Supreme Court, all in on a coverup to protect the forgers of Obama's birth certificate.
There are people who still believe this, but I wonder why none has gone so far as to accuse the perpetrators of the fraud by bringing a criminal case. Start with the Notary Public whose name appears on the back of the COLB that was posted. Also, right from the beginning, you can name at least two state officials in Hawaii, and probably should name the Governor of Hawaii and possibly the Secretary of State, since all of these people would be actively involved in the fraud.
But I don't see Berg making any criminal accusations, where he would have to go under oath personally and face potentially serious consequences if he has no evidence on which to base the accusations.
Donofrio, on the other hand, claims that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's amusing that some people supported both Berg and Donofrio, even though they make contradictory claims. Then it becomes clear that we are dealing with people who simply oppose Obama, and any vehicle that allows them to voice that opposition is accepted by them.
Or maybe the whole thing is a sham and there is a gigantic conspiracy inside and outside the government to keep it covered up.
Your call. Unless you are in the military, there is no law that says you personally are obligated to "consider the President legally elected." Basically, any action the government takes is subject to redress by you. Good luck.
>This is an issue that needs to be resolved
Okay: If it can be shown that a particular citizen's citizenship was conferred artificially, then that person is a naturalized citizen, otherwise the citizenship was from birth.
>Mr. Hopey Changey is filling his cabinet with storied Washington insiders.
His choices: 1. People with no experience (and you would call them "hacks" and still "insiders".
2. People from a former Democratic Administration. He could have hired people from the Carter Administration, but you would call them "cronies." The only other choices come from the Clinton Administration.
I think the only way you'd be satisfied is if he appointed people from the Bush Administration. Even then, I'm sure you'd voice your opposition. There is nobody Obama can pick that would meet with your approval.
Tell you what: Come out of anonymity, and for one of the remaining cabinet positions, tell us who you think he *should* choose, and why. I'm tired of the reactionary approach to denouncing Obama. He's not seeking the approval of "Anonymous Coward," you know.
So what do you have to do to make something that works on XP but does not work on Vista?
Are we talking about low-level device drivers here?
>For example, smoking in your car with a kid in California is ATTEMPTED MURDER.
[citation needed]
>really? so the ATM machine remembers the serial number on each bill it dispenses?
It can be arranged that way, if you control the order of the bills when they are loaded. And that's done under a strict protocol with armed security.
>>The fact that we are being asked to swallow this is disgusting.
>Thats what my ex used to say.
So what changed his mind?
We shred DVDs. It's a consumer-level shredder. It cuts the disc all to hell and is even pretty thorough at removing the medium from the substrate, or whatever the nomenclature is.
There are consumer shredders that will do discs, but ours was definitely not cheap. A GBC Shredmaster "DOD" model. (We're not a defense shop, we're a research hospital/medical college, among other things.)
I think you overestimate the resources of the Santa Cruz police.
McCarthy? Bush? GITMO?? Seriously, Santa Cruz isn't exactly playing in that world.
It's a person with actual experience like yours that we call "seasoned."
When can you start?
"TO think that The US Federal Government will give taxpayer money to banks et al to the tune of $2 Trillion with NIL oversight and NIL public disclosure is extremely dangerous and shortsighted."
Well, maybe the people at CERN should have diversified, and invested in a bank, et. al.