>I think by opposite he means GPL is the opposite of a monopoly.
But the GPL is an expression of rights that the grantor has under copyright law, and among those rights, is in fact, a limited monopoly on distribution.
>Pretty much correct, which is why as a plaintiff you ignore the contract completely and make a claim of >"deceptive advertising" or even better, "discrimination". Say they cut you off because you're black/a >woman/gay/Mormon/whatever. You're MUCH more likely to succeed on these grounds.
Good luck with that. "Success" means a judgment that says you don't have to pay the rest of your service.
>Good luck finding a jury that has any idea what a "250GB monthly cap" means.
Unless it's spelled out in writing, it really does not matter.
>Of course, a case like this will NEVER get before a jury
If it was a fairly good sized business, then maybe.
>God damn it people need to learn if you say unlimited on the ad it means fucking unlimited.
The ad can say whatever it wants to say. Read your contract and tell us what it says.
Understand that the "merger clause" in that contract means that NOTHING other than what is written in that contract will even be allowed as evidence at your lawsuit. And if you want to charge false or deceptive advertising, that's a completely separate issue from the contract you signed. You might be shocked if you read it. Mine takes an annual fee as consideration, allows that fee to be paid in monthly installments, and provides in return, a subscription to a largely undefined service. There is almost nothing a consumer can do in court to seek damages from this contract because the only things the company can do that constitute breach are (1.) fail to take your payment or (2.) fail to deliver a valuable subscription.
My state has a "Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations" which would allow a jury to consider what constitutes a reasonable subscription to a cable / internet service. Good luck seating a jury who thinks 250GB isn't a reasonable cap at the present time.
The bottom line for your lawsuit is that you almost certainly don't have a contract that gives you anything at all in terms of bandwidth. Such contracts *do* exist, and there are providers who will enter into them with you, but the consideration you must provide will be substantial. I happen to be a party to such a contract, which specifies all kinds of things including service levels. It's for a university campus and it's enormously expensive, and paid for in part by Your Tax Dollars, so thanks!
>You're required to provide notice when terms of a contract change.
Terms of a contract *cannot* change, full stop.
Once a contract is executed, any change to its terms requires the execution of a *new* contract, that covers the subject matter of these changes, that has a new "meeting of the minds between parties", and (very important!) has new *consideration*.
A "notice" cannot "change the terms of a contract" because it lacks "mutual assent" and, crucially important, does not include fresh consideration.
What's important here is that your contract with your cable company probably does nothing aside from provide a thing of value (a largely unspecified "subscription") in return for consideration (an annual fee that may be paid in monthly installments.) The parties are you (the subscriber) and the cable company. The "mutual assent" component has low threshold for consumer contracts. There will certainly be a merger clause that disallows parol evidence. That means that nothing at all can change the terms of the contract, no verbal discussions with a sales agent, and no "notices" after the fact. Of course the problem is you have no contract that specifies anything at all about the service itself. Even the notice is not necessary (not that you're supposed to be grateful, or whatever!) Does your state have a "Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations?"
Read your agreement. Then read UCC article 2 section 101. Then read your agreement again. Then decide if "internet service" is important to you. If it is, you should negotiate a proper contract with a service provider. Yes that will probably cost you real money. But you will have a contract, and if the company tries to pull this consumer shenanigans and change it, you would have a contract that could be enforced by injunction, and you would be entitled to sue for damages caused by the company's breach.
>Not necessarily. He says that the disks were sealed for the past 15 years. If he also stored them in a cool, dry >place, there's a good chance that the media is still good. I've recovered data from ~15 year old floppies that >have been stored like this.
I have a stupidly large C64 collection that's been stored in a barn in Texas and then in a garage in Arizona, since the mid-90s. Probably *because* I don't care, I have yet to see the first failed disk.
>How exactly is the GPL violating Anti-Trust laws?
It is not.
>Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*?
No. The "opposite" of violating the law is "compliance" and the GPL cannot "comply" with Anti-Trust laws. A creator of content has certain rights, that are reserved by default, purely on the basis of him having created that work. There are ways to assert those rights, such as giving notice (e.g., "registrations"), but these do not confer any "improved rights", they merely help with evidence when those rights need to be defended.
But the GPL is a license, a grant of certain authority that the licensee would not have without the license. If you wanted to accused the grantor of a GPL-style license of breaking some law, you would first need to show that the grantor did not have the right to use the license, which in the case of the GPL, would mean somehow depriving the grantor of his rights that he has under copyright law. What you suggest doing would be unprecedented in the US.
> We don't have to offer ANY aid, and the Myanmar government won't let us come in to help >anyways.
From their point of view, they see permanent risks of letting the camel's nose under their tent in response to a temporary crisis. And the value of all this "aid for Burma" is somewhat limited, and coming from nations that are bitter enemies of their very system of government. The dead can't be helped. Nothing is going to bring back the season for the agricultural sector. No amount of "aid" is going to suddenly create an infrastructure that can deal any better with millions of refugees than they can do at this moment themselves. But from the perspective of the Myanmar government (totalitarian asshole dictatorship that it is), it's quite insulting for all these wealthy nations to assume that they can't handle the aftermath of this storm.
I'm not defending them, but I can see why it's difficult for them to accept foreign aid, especially from some of the countries that are offering it, in the amounts being offered. They realize (correctly!) that leaders of some of the countries offering aid would very much like to see the Myanmar government replaced. Why should they be expected to let their guard down when they are weakened? The country will recover from the storm one way or another.
Politics aside, after seeing how the US dealt with New Orleans would *you* invite them to YOUR disaster?
>No, the US thinks the people of Burma will cost $30 each to save. Big difference. Since many of them could be >saved just by properly burying the dead, there is some plausibility to this low figure.
Now this is something I hear repeated after each disaster. But the biological/epidemiological basis for the claim is not there! Dead bodies, at least those killed in a natural disaster, are not inherently dangerous, and the risks of the spread of contagions is *much* higher with the living survivors than the corpses. As long as you isolate the fresh water supply from the corpses, it is better to not try to "properly bury them" right away. The labor involved in doing that can be put to far better purpose. If you hastily start burying the dead, you fail to document the victims and you make it impossible to ever get accurate counts. 24 hours after the flood or whatever, all the bodies are the same temperature as the surrounding environment, and the bodies start decaying, but the organisms that cause the decay are not really dangerous.
Unless a particular corpse was a person with a highly contagious disease to begin with, it's not really the biggest problem, and it should not be the survivor/rescue worker's first priority to try to bury the dead. And this is exactly how disaster relief personnel are trained, and I can put you in touch with professionals in health care, including several MD's and one MD/Ph.D. epidemiologist who will confirm what I'm saying in much more detail than I can.
Dead bodies smell bad and are demoralizing and frightening in a primal way, but they DO NOT inherently cause the spread of disease.
>Imagine it like giving someone more than one life term. What's up with that anyway?
1. Usually this is a result of being given separate sentences for individual counts. It means the convict is being sentenced for each victim. If somebody kills three people and only gets one sentence, they are getting two "free crimes" from the victim's / survivor's point of view. If the sentence is something like a max of 20 years, and the convict does not get sentenced twice for two crimes, which of the two victims is not getting justice?
2. A life term has eligibility for parole. Multiple sentences affect this eligibility in a profound way. Plenty of people with life sentences are out in the world in 15-20 years on parole, sometimes less. Consecutive sentences make it much less likely to happen.
3. When multiple sentences are made, an appeal may overturn one of them, but not all of them, because an appeals court may find error in one case or problems in one jurisdiction. If a sentence is suspended while an appeal is pending, another concurrent sentence can keep the convict locked up.
>I believe the easiest option for Amazon would be to simply drop all affiliates in New York.
It's a foregone conclusion that it wouldn't be easier to simply pay the damn tax? Bezos with his 8 billion dollars can't just subsidize sales to New York?
>Except for the fact that a simple combination like CTRL-W causes you to contort your hand enough that you get hand cramps...
Contort?
It's perfectly natural, at lest as "natural" as I can expect on a QWERTY. My hand moves from the home row, using only my elbow, to a position where my left ring finger is over esc, my left thumb is over caps-lock (which is my ctrl key), and my left index finger is over W or E. Ctrl-Esc is especially easy.
For Ctrl-F it depends on what the previous keystroke was, but it's often don with pinky on the caps-lock (ctrl) and index finger on the F, or with right pinky on the right ctrl and left index finger (same) on the F. I'm a very fast typist, I keyboard in a very relaxed position (hardly contorted, but I do keep my wrists high and my elbows higher), and I don't get hand cramps, which was actually my point and the reason I brought it up. I type fast enough that it causes social problems online, I've been a programmer and have worked almost constantly with typewriters and computer keyboards for more than 30 years, and I don't have RSI or CTS or whatever. For me, my use of the control key makes as much sense as hjkl for vi cursor movement. Further, what I think the "normal" motion for this would be, moves my left elbow closer to my ribs, the exact wrong effort.
Don't you know a Dvorak typist you can make fun of or something?
You are the one claiming a convicted murderer is innocent, and I'm the idiot. Shouldn't you be writing amicus briefs for Hans' appeal or hiring detectives to find Nina or something besides arguing with me and calling me names? You should realize that in my book, the ad-hominem insult automatically costs you any and all respect you might have had. You will note that I have not sunk to the level of personal insult in any of my posts on slashdot, in the... fourteen?... years I've been posting here. By insulting me and calling me names, you simply lose, because I simply refuse to listen to you.
>You're saying hiding evidence makes you guilty of first-degree murder beyond any reasonable doubt.
Testifying that you hid evidence that you knew was in a search warrant when you knew you were the prime suspect for a murder, lessened the level of doubt that they might have had as to the suspect's culpability. And that, Mr. Enderandrew, is why Hans Reiser will be spending the rest of his life in prison, and whether or not I am an idiot, I am not wrong, and I am not the person you should be pleading with, since even if you could somehow persuade me to change my point of view (and calling me insulting names certainly will never do it), I won't be the one to spring Hans.
You call me 'ingorant' but I've followed this case from day one, and I long ago explained that if his defense attorney could not make a better explanation for the evidence against him, then the case was going to rely on "reasonable doubt". It never occurred to me that Hans would be suicidal enough to take the stand. Once he did that, the jury had the luxury of having their latitude for doubt shrunk with every question, as every question to which they could claim "doubt", were they at all inclided to do so, was treated to a definite answer from the defendant.
Good luck with your "Hans was framed" campaign. Word of advice, though. You won't get far if your persuasion methods include calling people names and insulting them. That wouldn't even work if you were right.
>He could have dumped it because it had broken. People dump things all the time.
Really, Hans' biggest problem is that he destroyed evidence after a search warrant was served listing that specific evidence. A lot of people who comment on this subject don't seem to realize that Hans disposed of the car seat and the interior trim, he very thoroughly washed out the interior of the car using a quite unorthodox method (hosing it down totally!), and then he hid the car... AFTER he had been named as a suspect for murder and AFTER a search warrant was served specifically identifying that ar.
People "dump things" all the time. People who dump things that are named as evidence in murder trials where they are the only suspect, need very good explanations for the action (and "I don't remember" is as far from "very good explanation" as it gets).
Basically, there's no reason to presume that the evidence he destroyed would have been exculpatory.
Three possibilities: Nina's not dead but Hans is dumb enough and unlucky enough that it looks enough like he killed her and disposed of the body, and now goes to jail until at least 2033. Nina's dead, and somebody else killed her, and knowingly or not, Hans has destroyed the evidence and has covered it up so that the killer is free. Or Nina's dead, he killed her, just like the judgment of his trial says he did.
I'm not normally one to side with authority.
In this case, though, I'm squarely with the judge and jury.
It's much harder than most people seem to think to "just up and disappear."
It's clear that you will not be convinced that Hans killed Nina until he confesses (and perhaps not even then.) It is also clear that you are not convinced that Nina's dead (even though at this point, that premise really does require you to find her.) It's also pretty clear that you don't understand just how damning it was for Hans to have destroyed the car, in particular, and how much worse it is for him that he did so only *after* being accused of the crime and only *after* the search warrant was served. To everybody who claims they've thrown things away and forgotten about it... I have not heard from anyone who threw things away and forgot about those things when they knew those things were being sought by the police who had a warrant for those particular things. And this is the main point of Hans' testimony. He acknowledged all this under oath. That, more than anything else, is why he's going to prison.
You won't like this one bit, but it might even be enough to keep him in prison even if Nina shows up alive, because it's too late to negotiate this to a mere "obstruction of justice" charge.
Hans is going to prison until at least 2033, and probably for life. You aren't satisfied with that. If you feel strongly enough about it, go find Nina.
>You're suggesting anyone who hides information is guilty.
No. I expect you to get it through your head that because Hans testified to the fact that he destroyed and hid evidence that was listed in a search warrant, and that he *knew* at the *time* that it was listed in a search warrant, he *is guilty* by admission of destroying evidence that was being sought in a murder trial in which he was the primary suspect.
>So anyone who uses privacy proxy like Tor should be thrown in jail.
No. Anyone who is accused of murder, and who is then served a search warrant, and then proceeds to destroy the evidence named in that warrant, had better have a very good explanation for doing so, or he can expect to go to prison for murder.
>Destroying evidence is a much lesser count.
Stuff about me being wrong, ignored. I'm not wrong.
>If that is the only evidence you have, it certainly doesn't abolish all reasonable doubt.
That wasn't the only evidence, but it is *damning*. An person, innocent or guilty, who, after being served a search warrant for murder, destroys and/or hides the things listed in that warrant, is going to the chair.
Essentially, that's what Hans is going to prison for. He destroyed evidence that was named in a warrant. If he's not the killer, his actions have led to a killer going free. That alone deserves life in prison.
>If I saw somebody typing like you describe, I would probably start throwing things at him once my laughter subsided.
It makes perfect sense to me, and after a very long time of keyboarding, I have no issues like RSI. Many of my former co-workers and colleagues have had to abandon their careers, have undergone painful surgery, or are simply living with pain.
Laugh if you want to. Throw whatever you like. I'm satisfied.
One thing is known for certain, because it comes from the defendant's own testimony:
Hans destroyed evidence that he knew was specifically named in a search warrant, while he knew that he was the primary suspect for his wife's murder.
Hans hosed down the interior of his car, and disposed of the interior trim and the passenger seat *after* the search warrant was served. He then *hid* the car. He *testified* to these facts, and to the fact that he *knew* the car was the subject of a search warrant at the time.
Hans fans have responded to this with irrelevant stories about taking cars apart and forgetting about it... But Hans destroyed evidence that he *knew* was the subject of a search warrant, and testified to remove any doubt that he knew, and this is why he was found guilty.
You want to focus on the conflicting testimony of the 7-year old, or the problems with the other evidence. One of the first things the jury agreed they were convinced about, was that Nina is dead, and not in hiding. At this point if you want people to believe Nina is not dead, you need to find her.
>Check this link. Circumstacial evidence is not allowed in many states for liable in defective product cases.
Torts fall under almost *entirely* different rules of evidence from crimes. Maybe you can help Hans when his appeal comes up in 12 or 50 years or never.
I would not put money on Nina surfacing alive and well. Safer bet would be that her body washes up in the Bay.
I was a "no body, no evidence" advocate when the story broke originally, and it was only when Hans' explanation about things like the car turned out to be full of fail that I changed my mind. He needed to do a better job of explaining, for my armchair judgment, and had I been a juror, I wouldn't have been satisfied with his explanation either.
When the prosecutor says you dumped your car seat because you had strapped your wife's bloody corpse to it... you really, really need a better answer to that than a shrug, or "no I didn't". Sorry if that is unfair or harsh. I think he's guilty and I'm glad the verdict was guilty and I hope he gets life.
EVEN IF Nina shows up alive and well, Hans has a lot of explaining to do.
The White House administration does indeed haggle over pennies, for things that come out of its own budget. You think the trillions of dollars spent on the war come out of the White House budget?
For that matter, why do you call that money "spent?" It does go back into the economy, in the form of payments on defense contracts. Invest in defense companies and be on the receiving end of that money:-)
That's not how I do it. I keyboard with my wrist *very* high, very much like a piano technique (I'm a pianist). I move my shoulders and elbows much more than my wrists. So many of my co-workers have suffered from RSI.
The way I finger CTRL-W is, my left thumb on the Caps Lock key (CTRL) and my left index finger on the W. This is precisely the same hand and elbow position I use to press Esc, tilde, or tab with my left ring finger.
Slashdot Mirror
>Of course, none of this has been tested in court.
Hardly anything has been more thoroughly tested in court than the rights reserved under copyright law,
and the effect of licensing those rights.
>I think by opposite he means GPL is the opposite of a monopoly.
But the GPL is an expression of rights that the grantor has under copyright law,
and among those rights, is in fact, a limited monopoly on distribution.
>Pretty much correct, which is why as a plaintiff you ignore the contract completely and make a claim of
>"deceptive advertising" or even better, "discrimination". Say they cut you off because you're black/a
>woman/gay/Mormon/whatever. You're MUCH more likely to succeed on these grounds.
Good luck with that. "Success" means a judgment that says you don't have to pay the rest of your service.
>Good luck finding a jury that has any idea what a "250GB monthly cap" means.
Unless it's spelled out in writing, it really does not matter.
>Of course, a case like this will NEVER get before a jury
If it was a fairly good sized business, then maybe.
>God damn it people need to learn if you say unlimited on the ad it means fucking unlimited.
The ad can say whatever it wants to say. Read your contract and tell us what it says.
Understand that the "merger clause" in that contract means that NOTHING other than what is written in that contract will even be allowed as evidence at your lawsuit. And if you want to charge false or deceptive advertising, that's a completely separate issue from the contract you signed. You might be shocked if you read it. Mine takes an annual fee as consideration, allows that fee to be paid in monthly installments, and provides in return, a subscription to a largely undefined service. There is almost nothing a consumer can do in court to seek damages from this contract because the only things the company can do that constitute breach are (1.) fail to take your payment or (2.) fail to deliver a valuable subscription.
My state has a "Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations" which would allow a jury to consider what constitutes a reasonable subscription to a cable / internet service. Good luck seating a jury who thinks 250GB isn't a reasonable cap at the present time.
The bottom line for your lawsuit is that you almost certainly don't have a contract that gives you anything at all in terms of bandwidth. Such contracts *do* exist, and there are providers who will enter into them with you, but the consideration you must provide will be substantial. I happen to be a party to such a contract, which specifies all kinds of things including service levels. It's for a university campus and it's enormously expensive, and paid for in part by Your Tax Dollars, so thanks!
>You're required to provide notice when terms of a contract change.
Terms of a contract *cannot* change, full stop.
Once a contract is executed, any change to its terms requires the execution of a *new* contract,
that covers the subject matter of these changes, that has a new "meeting of the minds between parties",
and (very important!) has new *consideration*.
A "notice" cannot "change the terms of a contract" because it lacks "mutual assent" and, crucially important, does not include fresh consideration.
What's important here is that your contract with your cable company probably does nothing aside from provide a thing of value (a largely unspecified "subscription") in return for consideration (an annual fee that may be paid in monthly installments.) The parties are you (the subscriber) and the cable company. The "mutual assent" component has low threshold for consumer contracts. There will certainly be a merger clause that disallows parol evidence. That means that nothing at all can change the terms of the contract, no verbal discussions with a sales agent, and no "notices" after the fact. Of course the problem is you have no contract that specifies anything at all about the service itself. Even the notice is not necessary (not that you're supposed to be grateful, or whatever!) Does your state have a "Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations?"
Read your agreement. Then read UCC article 2 section 101. Then read your agreement again.
Then decide if "internet service" is important to you. If it is, you should negotiate a proper contract
with a service provider. Yes that will probably cost you real money. But you will have a contract, and if the company tries to pull this consumer shenanigans and change it, you would have a contract that could be enforced by injunction, and you would be entitled to sue for damages caused by the company's breach.
>Not necessarily. He says that the disks were sealed for the past 15 years. If he also stored them in a cool, dry
>place, there's a good chance that the media is still good. I've recovered data from ~15 year old floppies that >have been stored like this.
I have a stupidly large C64 collection that's been stored in a barn in Texas and then in a garage in Arizona, since the mid-90s. Probably *because* I don't care, I have yet to see the first failed disk.
>How exactly is the GPL violating Anti-Trust laws?
It is not.
>Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*?
No. The "opposite" of violating the law is "compliance" and the GPL cannot "comply" with Anti-Trust laws.
A creator of content has certain rights, that are reserved by default, purely on the basis of him having created that work. There are ways to assert those rights, such as giving notice (e.g., "registrations"), but these do not confer any "improved rights", they merely help with evidence when those rights need to be defended.
But the GPL is a license, a grant of certain authority that the licensee would not have without the license.
If you wanted to accused the grantor of a GPL-style license of breaking some law, you would first need to show that the grantor did not have the right to use the license, which in the case of the GPL, would mean somehow depriving the grantor of his rights that he has under copyright law. What you suggest doing would be unprecedented in the US.
> We don't have to offer ANY aid, and the Myanmar government won't let us come in to help
>anyways.
From their point of view, they see permanent risks of letting the camel's nose under their tent in response to a temporary crisis. And the value of all this "aid for Burma" is somewhat limited, and coming from nations that are bitter enemies of their very system of government. The dead can't be helped. Nothing is going to bring back the season for the agricultural sector. No amount of "aid" is going to suddenly create an infrastructure that can deal any better with millions of refugees than they can do at this moment themselves. But from the perspective of the Myanmar government (totalitarian asshole dictatorship that it is), it's quite insulting for all these wealthy nations to assume that they can't handle the aftermath of this storm.
I'm not defending them, but I can see why it's difficult for them to accept foreign aid, especially from some of the countries that are offering it, in the amounts being offered. They realize (correctly!) that leaders of some of the countries offering aid would very much like to see the Myanmar government replaced. Why should they be expected to let their guard down when they are weakened? The country will recover from the storm one way or another.
Politics aside, after seeing how the US dealt with New Orleans would *you* invite them to YOUR disaster?
>No, the US thinks the people of Burma will cost $30 each to save. Big difference. Since many of them could be
>saved just by properly burying the dead, there is some plausibility to this low figure.
Now this is something I hear repeated after each disaster. But the biological/epidemiological basis for the claim is not there! Dead bodies, at least those killed in a natural disaster, are not inherently dangerous, and the risks of the spread of contagions is *much* higher with the living survivors than the corpses. As long as you isolate the fresh water supply from the corpses, it is better to not try to "properly bury them" right away. The labor involved in doing that can be put to far better purpose. If you hastily start burying the dead, you fail to document the victims and you make it impossible to ever get accurate counts. 24 hours after the flood or whatever, all the bodies are the same temperature as the surrounding environment, and the bodies start decaying, but the organisms that cause the decay are not really dangerous.
Unless a particular corpse was a person with a highly contagious disease to begin with, it's not really the biggest problem, and it should not be the survivor/rescue worker's first priority to try to bury the dead. And this is exactly how disaster relief personnel are trained, and I can put you in touch with professionals in health care, including several MD's and one MD/Ph.D. epidemiologist who will confirm what I'm saying in much more detail than I can.
Dead bodies smell bad and are demoralizing and frightening in a primal way, but they DO NOT inherently cause the spread of disease.
>Imagine it like giving someone more than one life term. What's up with that anyway?
1. Usually this is a result of being given separate sentences for individual counts. It means
the convict is being sentenced for each victim. If somebody kills three people and only gets one
sentence, they are getting two "free crimes" from the victim's / survivor's point of view. If the
sentence is something like a max of 20 years, and the convict does not get sentenced twice for two crimes,
which of the two victims is not getting justice?
2. A life term has eligibility for parole. Multiple sentences affect this eligibility in a profound way.
Plenty of people with life sentences are out in the world in 15-20 years on parole, sometimes less. Consecutive sentences make it much less likely to happen.
3. When multiple sentences are made, an appeal may overturn one of them, but not all of them, because an appeals court may find error in one case or problems in one jurisdiction. If a sentence is suspended while an appeal is pending, another concurrent sentence can keep the convict locked up.
>I believe the easiest option for Amazon would be to simply drop all affiliates in New York.
It's a foregone conclusion that it wouldn't be easier to simply pay the damn tax?
Bezos with his 8 billion dollars can't just subsidize sales to New York?
>No, but there are lots of people who have lost much valuable property because they were accused of breaking drug laws.
So the smart growers rent.
>Except for the fact that a simple combination like CTRL-W causes you to contort your hand enough that you get hand cramps...
Contort?
It's perfectly natural, at lest as "natural" as I can expect on a QWERTY.
My hand moves from the home row, using only my elbow, to a position where my left ring finger is over esc, my left thumb is over caps-lock (which is my ctrl key), and my left index finger is over W or E. Ctrl-Esc is especially easy.
For Ctrl-F it depends on what the previous keystroke was, but it's often don with pinky on the caps-lock (ctrl) and index finger on the F, or with right pinky on the right ctrl and left index finger (same) on the F. I'm a very fast typist, I keyboard in a very relaxed position (hardly contorted, but I do keep my wrists high and my elbows higher), and I don't get hand cramps, which was actually my point and the reason I brought it up. I type fast enough that it causes social problems online, I've been a programmer and have worked almost constantly with typewriters and computer keyboards for more than 30 years, and I don't have RSI or CTS or whatever. For me, my use of the control key makes as much sense as hjkl for vi cursor movement. Further, what I think the "normal" motion for this would be, moves my left elbow closer to my ribs, the exact wrong effort.
Don't you know a Dvorak typist you can make fun of or something?
>No, you're wrong and you're an idiot.
You are the one claiming a convicted murderer is innocent, and I'm the idiot.
Shouldn't you be writing amicus briefs for Hans' appeal or hiring detectives to
find Nina or something besides arguing with me and calling me names? You should realize
that in my book, the ad-hominem insult automatically costs you any and all respect
you might have had. You will note that I have not sunk to the level of personal insult
in any of my posts on slashdot, in the
By insulting me and calling me names, you simply lose, because I simply refuse to listen to you.
>You're saying hiding evidence makes you guilty of first-degree murder beyond any reasonable doubt.
Testifying that you hid evidence that you knew was in a search warrant when you knew you were the prime
suspect for a murder, lessened the level of doubt that they might have had as to the suspect's culpability.
And that, Mr. Enderandrew, is why Hans Reiser will be spending the rest of his life in prison, and whether
or not I am an idiot, I am not wrong, and I am not the person you should be pleading with, since even if you
could somehow persuade me to change my point of view (and calling me insulting names certainly will never do it),
I won't be the one to spring Hans.
You call me 'ingorant' but I've followed this case from day one, and I long ago explained that if his defense attorney could not make a better explanation for the evidence against him, then the case was going to rely on "reasonable doubt". It never occurred to me that Hans would be suicidal enough to take the stand. Once he did that, the jury had the luxury of having their latitude for doubt shrunk with every question, as every question to which they could claim "doubt", were they at all inclided to do so, was treated to a definite answer from the defendant.
Good luck with your "Hans was framed" campaign. Word of advice, though. You won't get far if your persuasion methods include calling people names and insulting them. That wouldn't even work if you were right.
>He could have dumped it because it had broken. People dump things all the time.
Really, Hans' biggest problem is that he destroyed evidence after a search warrant
was served listing that specific evidence. A lot of people who comment on this subject
don't seem to realize that Hans disposed of the car seat and the interior trim, he very
thoroughly washed out the interior of the car using a quite unorthodox method (hosing it
down totally!), and then he hid the car... AFTER he had been named as a suspect for murder
and AFTER a search warrant was served specifically identifying that ar.
People "dump things" all the time. People who dump things that are named as evidence in
murder trials where they are the only suspect, need very good explanations for the action
(and "I don't remember" is as far from "very good explanation" as it gets).
Basically, there's no reason to presume that the evidence he destroyed would have been exculpatory.
Three possibilities: Nina's not dead but Hans is dumb enough and unlucky enough that it looks enough
like he killed her and disposed of the body, and now goes to jail until at least 2033. Nina's dead,
and somebody else killed her, and knowingly or not, Hans has destroyed the evidence and has covered it
up so that the killer is free. Or Nina's dead, he killed her, just like the judgment of his trial says
he did.
I'm not normally one to side with authority.
In this case, though, I'm squarely with the judge and jury.
It's much harder than most people seem to think to "just up and disappear."
It's clear that you will not be convinced that Hans killed Nina until he confesses (and perhaps not even then.) It is also clear that you are not convinced that Nina's dead (even though at this point, that premise really does require you to find her.) It's also pretty clear that you don't understand just how damning it was for Hans to have destroyed the car, in particular, and how much worse it is for him that he did so only *after* being accused of the crime and only *after* the search warrant was served. To everybody who claims they've thrown things away and forgotten about it
You won't like this one bit, but it might even be enough to keep him in prison even if Nina shows up alive, because it's too late to negotiate this to a mere "obstruction of justice" charge.
Hans is going to prison until at least 2033, and probably for life. You aren't satisfied with that. If you feel strongly enough about it, go find Nina.
>You're suggesting anyone who hides information is guilty.
No. I expect you to get it through your head that because Hans testified to the fact
that he destroyed and hid evidence that was listed in a search warrant, and that he *knew*
at the *time* that it was listed in a search warrant, he *is guilty* by admission of destroying
evidence that was being sought in a murder trial in which he was the primary suspect.
>So anyone who uses privacy proxy like Tor should be thrown in jail.
No. Anyone who is accused of murder, and who is then served a search warrant, and then proceeds
to destroy the evidence named in that warrant, had better have a very good explanation for doing
so, or he can expect to go to prison for murder.
>Destroying evidence is a much lesser count.
Stuff about me being wrong, ignored. I'm not wrong.
>I would say that the reason they're billing the widow is because she can afford it.
If they don't bill everyone the same, for reasonably similar circumstances, I smell an Equal Protection challenge.
>If that is the only evidence you have, it certainly doesn't abolish all reasonable doubt.
That wasn't the only evidence, but it is *damning*. An person, innocent or guilty, who, after being served a search warrant
for murder, destroys and/or hides the things listed in that warrant, is going to the chair.
Essentially, that's what Hans is going to prison for. He destroyed evidence that was named in a warrant. If he's not the killer,
his actions have led to a killer going free. That alone deserves life in prison.
>If I saw somebody typing like you describe, I would probably start throwing things at him once my laughter subsided.
It makes perfect sense to me, and after a very long time of keyboarding, I have no issues like RSI.
Many of my former co-workers and colleagues have had to abandon their careers, have undergone painful surgery, or are simply living with pain.
Laugh if you want to. Throw whatever you like. I'm satisfied.
>Nothing is known for certain.
One thing is known for certain, because it comes from the defendant's own testimony:
Hans destroyed evidence that he knew was specifically named in a search warrant, while
he knew that he was the primary suspect for his wife's murder.
Hans hosed down the interior of his car, and disposed of the interior trim and the passenger
seat *after* the search warrant was served. He then *hid* the car. He *testified* to these
facts, and to the fact that he *knew* the car was the subject of a search warrant at the time.
Hans fans have responded to this with irrelevant stories about taking cars apart and forgetting
about it... But Hans destroyed evidence that he *knew* was the subject of a search warrant, and
testified to remove any doubt that he knew, and this is why he was found guilty.
You want to focus on the conflicting testimony of the 7-year old, or the problems with the other
evidence. One of the first things the jury agreed they were convinced about, was that Nina is dead,
and not in hiding. At this point if you want people to believe Nina is not dead, you need to find her.
Why don't you come out of Anonymous Cowardice and call me names to my face, punk?
>Check this link. Circumstacial evidence is not allowed in many states for liable in defective product cases.
Torts fall under almost *entirely* different rules of evidence from crimes.
Maybe you can help Hans when his appeal comes up in 12 or 50 years or never.
I would not put money on Nina surfacing alive and well. Safer bet would be that her body washes up in the Bay.
I was a "no body, no evidence" advocate when the story broke originally, and it was only when Hans' explanation about things like the car turned out to be full of fail that I changed my mind. He needed to do a better job of explaining, for my armchair judgment, and had I been a juror, I wouldn't have been satisfied with his explanation either.
When the prosecutor says you dumped your car seat because you had strapped your wife's bloody corpse to it... you really, really need a better answer to that than a shrug, or "no I didn't". Sorry if that is unfair or harsh. I think he's guilty and I'm glad the verdict was guilty and I hope he gets life.
EVEN IF Nina shows up alive and well, Hans has a lot of explaining to do.
The White House administration does indeed haggle over pennies, for things that come out of its own budget.
:-)
You think the trillions of dollars spent on the war come out of the White House budget?
For that matter, why do you call that money "spent?" It does go back into the economy, in the form of payments on defense contracts.
Invest in defense companies and be on the receiving end of that money
That's not how I do it. I keyboard with my wrist *very* high, very much like a piano technique (I'm a pianist). I move my shoulders and elbows much more than my wrists. So many of my co-workers have suffered from RSI.
The way I finger CTRL-W is, my left thumb on the Caps Lock key (CTRL) and my left index finger on the W.
This is precisely the same hand and elbow position I use to press Esc, tilde, or tab with my left ring finger.