So until you can't afford the rent, food or clothes you should just suck up the loss from not being allowed to work? Being out of work for as long as it normally takes for litigation to move its way through the system could permanently damage someone's future ability to work, particularly in a rapidly developing industry - this is irreperable damage being done by this injunction and I want to see exactly how inadequate the means of putting it right are. (irreparable damage == can't be entirely put right)
I don't wish financial loss on people simply because they can probably afford it. I say probably; for all we know he's overstretched himself like almost everyone has and being out of work for 6 months will result in him losing his (very large) house.
so if it's decided at the end of the trial that the non-compete didn't apply and he was free to work for Apple, who compensates him for the lost earning whilst the temporary injunction was in place? What about secondary losses? Loss to Apple?
I don't get it though, the US system is 'first to invent'. So you invent something, keep it as a trade secret, Halliburton reverse engineers and patents it, Halliburton sues you, you produce copious quantities of documentation showing that you invented it first and walk out of the room with their patent under your arm.
In the mean time, they can't get this patent elsewhere because the first-to-file world doesn't recognise business method patents. Or do they propose to patent in the US a method of patent trolling in the rest of the world.
well, because they'd be at risk throughout Europe if a European arrest warrant was issued for them. And it seems that local governments don't have the right to tell issuing countries to get bent when they recieve a warrant for a petty or out-of-jurisdiction 'offence'.
there are also CPS guidelines for taking over private prosecutions, so if they decline to prosecute, and you go for someone anyway, they may change their minds and take the burden of prosecution off your hands without having to start the case over.
For the plaintiff, the definition of 'lose' is 'didn't win'
Yes?
I can see how that could help against the current foe, but I can also see that it's an inherently inequitable system and that it could further restrict access to justice for vulnerable plaintiffs in the future. Unless you propose that it only apply to the RIAA\MPAA (which won't fly).
Which is why I prefer my system. Though I will snaffle your "for the plantiff, 'lose' means 'didn't win'" idea - that makes a lot of sense as the defendant never has the option of ending the suit by withrawing it.
no, they should have to pay all the lawyers fees of the winner up to the value of their own fees. If you wheel out the big guns and win because of it, your opponent shouldn't have to pay for your big guns. In reality this will result in award of full payment of fees to RIAA defendants who win and no award of fees to the RIAA when they batter pro se defendants.
Unless you're saying that the loser (whether they're the plaintiff or the defendant) should have to pay the defendant's fees, but that no such reciprocal system should apply for the payment of the plaintiff's fees (thus making it entirely impossible to countersue the RIAA)
I don't remember those options - mythbuntu comes with xfce - maybe they're buried more comprehensively.
apt-get is not a useable way to install software. It's a command line tool with a non-obvious name which requires you to know the name of the package that you want to install or do something else (which I never found out before I got fed up) to get the package name.
Compare to yast (which is called 'control centre' on the Kmenu) and has a 'software management' module which shows you which packages are available all categorized ready for your perusal. And with 10.3 and 11.0 you get one-click install for many packages on a web site. You go to the Suse website (everyone knows what a website is) find the page for the software that you want, and hit the one-click install button. How many orders of magnitude simpler is that than the command line?
I mean stuff like getting at the firewall settings so I could be sure that port 22 was open, or getting at the bootloader settings - there's a Yast module for those in suse, in ubuntu you seem to be forced to modify obscure config files - and because there's no sensible way of installing software you can't actually get a useable text editor to edit them with (nor is there an obvious way to start one of the GUI text editors as root).
Nope. Ubuntu is a pita to get working the way you want - oh yes, if you just want it working out of the box as the ubuntu developers want it working out of the box it's ok (unless you want some custom partitions, in which case it's a bit hairy), but to make it do what YOU want is damn-near impossible.
I was trying to set up a mythtv box a few weeks ago with mythbuntu, and I could get mythbuntu installed, but could I get control over any of the rest of the system to make customisations? Could I heck - I also couldn't persuade mythTV to actually work - which is impressive for a distro which is supposed to have it all working.
Eventually I wiped it and started again with suse11.0 and slapped the myth packages on top of it and now it works. Yast makes it an absolute doddle to add software and modify system settings - no disro should be allowed into the home without it.
There have already been reported cases of dead people having already voted, both federally and in the primaries.
Interesting side topic - if you kick the bucket between posting your absentee ballot and election day, is your vote supposed to count? (even if, in practice, nobody ever actually extracts the small number of votes which meet those criteria)
The obvious solution here is for every bag to be checked and a compulsory* list drawn up of all the contents - one copy for the traveller, one copy for the bag, one copy for the TSA and one copy in an electronic system so it can be retrieved at the far end. If, during a subsequent search, anything is siezed, this must be documented, one copy for the TSA, one copy in the bag, one electronic copy, and one copy to be given to the traveller at their destination.
Then, if anything is missing when the bag is retrieved the TSA is assumed to be repsonsible for the loss unless it can prove that it legitimately siezed whatever is missing. (not just 'we seized it', but 'we seized it because...' - the TSA would also not have the final word on wether this was a valid reason.)
*Compulsory list to stop TSA goons pressuring people into not having a list drawn up. If a bag gets through undocumented; someone gets fired.
That's because they're both part of the empire. However, as both of those countries are going equally mad, I recommend New Zealand which is a little further behind on the madness stakes, even if their policies towards bankrupcy and nuclear power are crazy.
The French justice system is known for such civilized aspects as guillotining women for the "crime" of abortion within living memory.
And the US has executed people for equally dubious reasons in the past. The point at issue though is which is more civilized RIGHT NOW, and the one which doesn't execute people at all comes out on top there.
France follows the Napoleonic code, which among other things has a de facto (although not de jure) presumption of guilt of an accused.
*shrug* any trial actually run on the basis of presumption of guilt will be tossed by the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR does stamp on lower courts, and is aguably better at it than SCOTUS.
French courts follow the inquisitorial system, in which the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, as opposed to the US and British adversarial system in which the court acts as an impartial referee.
Which is a MUCH better system than where the court is just a thoughtless tool which doesn't actually care about facts, only the relative strength of the cases. If one side presents something untrue and the other doesn't refute it then people get unjustly hurt - I WANT courts which are actually interested in the truth. The purely adverserial system in common-law courts is a heavy contributor to why they're so screwed up today. For instance; the Angela Cannings case in the UK, the primary prosecution witness made two major errors in his statistical argument, but unless the defence are on-the-ball enough to point it out (which it turns out that they weren't) the flawed evidence will stand (which it did) because it isn't (and wasn't) the court's prerogative to question it.
What this means is that the judge basically serves as another prosecutor in French courts.
(S)He has an equal responsibility to look for evidence demonstrating the innocence of the accused - the adverserial system has prosecutors who have the sole aim of constructing a case to show that the accused is guilty, even if they aren't. In any case, once you get to a court where there is a prosecutor, the inquisitorial judge is no longer there.
Plus you can hardly blame them for honoring a treaty and all.
Watch me. We should never have signed up to such a wide-ranging treaty (a fact which has become abundantly clear recently) - I expect our government to frustrate the process of complying with the treaty as much as possible whilst simultaneously working to get out of it.
I don't have the data, but I suspect they extradite people to France as well.
The French justice system is a damn-sight more civilised than the US one.
Hey, I'm just saying what most of us are thinking.
I've owned every modern Blizz game except War1 & WoW, including all expansion sets and multiple copies of some. I was terribly excited when StarcraftII was announced - I was even willing to forgive them the BnetD thing, (since the whole project has gone open source and the community has essentially won,) and cough up full price for the game (rather than my usual tactic of getting it a year later when the price has dropped), but then they went one step scummier than before, forced through the courts the most insane argument in history to kill MMO Glider and left the door open for personally bankrupting its creator.
I, for one, will not be giving them another penny of my money. While I may have thought that they were losing it with War3, Blizz were still producing the best games this side of Chris Taylor and I'd have continued to buy them. But now I'm just one more disillusioned player who'll be deliberately denying themselves these people's (still high quality) games, and I want to know how it feels to work your butt off producing a polished game, and have people refuse to play it no matter how good it is because your corporate overlords have been running the company's name through the mud. (Probably feels like you have a paycheck in the bank every month, but anyway...)
It could be argued that since the game-making powerhouses behind the Diablo1 era games have moved on, Blizzard has been inadequately clawing to stay at the top of the mountain of excellence. How do you feel about Blizz corporate throwing away most of gamers remaining goodwill by its inapparopriate and heavy-handed litigious bludgeoning of the creators of BnetD and MMO Glider?
It just seemed like the most relevant place to attach it.
Another variation. Print out 1000 random characters on a page, use stacks of pages like that - that's ~300 stacks. If the size of my school at that age is anything to go by, that's one stack per pupil, or 10 stacks per pupil in a class of 30.
Slashdot Mirror
So until you can't afford the rent, food or clothes you should just suck up the loss from not being allowed to work?
Being out of work for as long as it normally takes for litigation to move its way through the system could permanently damage someone's future ability to work, particularly in a rapidly developing industry - this is irreperable damage being done by this injunction and I want to see exactly how inadequate the means of putting it right are. (irreparable damage == can't be entirely put right)
I don't wish financial loss on people simply because they can probably afford it. I say probably; for all we know he's overstretched himself like almost everyone has and being out of work for 6 months will result in him losing his (very large) house.
so if it's decided at the end of the trial that the non-compete didn't apply and he was free to work for Apple, who compensates him for the lost earning whilst the temporary injunction was in place? What about secondary losses? Loss to Apple?
I don't get it though, the US system is 'first to invent'. So you invent something, keep it as a trade secret, Halliburton reverse engineers and patents it, Halliburton sues you, you produce copious quantities of documentation showing that you invented it first and walk out of the room with their patent under your arm.
In the mean time, they can't get this patent elsewhere because the first-to-file world doesn't recognise business method patents. Or do they propose to patent in the US a method of patent trolling in the rest of the world.
What have I missed?
well, because they'd be at risk throughout Europe if a European arrest warrant was issued for them. And it seems that local governments don't have the right to tell issuing countries to get bent when they recieve a warrant for a petty or out-of-jurisdiction 'offence'.
It's coming true! Black-hat really does want to be Secretary of the Internet!
there are also CPS guidelines for taking over private prosecutions, so if they decline to prosecute, and you go for someone anyway, they may change their minds and take the burden of prosecution off your hands without having to start the case over.
So what you're proposing is:
Yes?
I can see how that could help against the current foe, but I can also see that it's an inherently inequitable system and that it could further restrict access to justice for vulnerable plaintiffs in the future. Unless you propose that it only apply to the RIAA\MPAA (which won't fly).
Which is why I prefer my system. Though I will snaffle your "for the plantiff, 'lose' means 'didn't win'" idea - that makes a lot of sense as the defendant never has the option of ending the suit by withrawing it.
no, they should have to pay all the lawyers fees of the winner up to the value of their own fees. If you wheel out the big guns and win because of it, your opponent shouldn't have to pay for your big guns. In reality this will result in award of full payment of fees to RIAA defendants who win and no award of fees to the RIAA when they batter pro se defendants.
Unless you're saying that the loser (whether they're the plaintiff or the defendant) should have to pay the defendant's fees, but that no such reciprocal system should apply for the payment of the plaintiff's fees (thus making it entirely impossible to countersue the RIAA)
Take your kids and their sleeping bags with you to your friends. Do your friends have kids? (election night sleepover) Or a spare bedroom?
I don't remember those options - mythbuntu comes with xfce - maybe they're buried more comprehensively.
apt-get is not a useable way to install software. It's a command line tool with a non-obvious name which requires you to know the name of the package that you want to install or do something else (which I never found out before I got fed up) to get the package name.
Compare to yast (which is called 'control centre' on the Kmenu) and has a 'software management' module which shows you which packages are available all categorized ready for your perusal. And with 10.3 and 11.0 you get one-click install for many packages on a web site. You go to the Suse website (everyone knows what a website is) find the page for the software that you want, and hit the one-click install button. How many orders of magnitude simpler is that than the command line?
I mean stuff like getting at the firewall settings so I could be sure that port 22 was open, or getting at the bootloader settings - there's a Yast module for those in suse, in ubuntu you seem to be forced to modify obscure config files - and because there's no sensible way of installing software you can't actually get a useable text editor to edit them with (nor is there an obvious way to start one of the GUI text editors as root).
Nope. Ubuntu is a pita to get working the way you want - oh yes, if you just want it working out of the box as the ubuntu developers want it working out of the box it's ok (unless you want some custom partitions, in which case it's a bit hairy), but to make it do what YOU want is damn-near impossible.
I was trying to set up a mythtv box a few weeks ago with mythbuntu, and I could get mythbuntu installed, but could I get control over any of the rest of the system to make customisations? Could I heck - I also couldn't persuade mythTV to actually work - which is impressive for a distro which is supposed to have it all working.
Eventually I wiped it and started again with suse11.0 and slapped the myth packages on top of it and now it works. Yast makes it an absolute doddle to add software and modify system settings - no disro should be allowed into the home without it.
Interesting side topic - if you kick the bucket between posting your absentee ballot and election day, is your vote supposed to count? (even if, in practice, nobody ever actually extracts the small number of votes which meet those criteria)
And soon! The next installment of disagreemail is just days away!
*wretch*
Britain - always one step ahead of the curve!
I've never understood this - why should they be out the money that they paid? Isn't he on the hook to refund it as a matter of course?
The obvious solution here is for every bag to be checked and a compulsory* list drawn up of all the contents - one copy for the traveller, one copy for the bag, one copy for the TSA and one copy in an electronic system so it can be retrieved at the far end.
If, during a subsequent search, anything is siezed, this must be documented, one copy for the TSA, one copy in the bag, one electronic copy, and one copy to be given to the traveller at their destination.
Then, if anything is missing when the bag is retrieved the TSA is assumed to be repsonsible for the loss unless it can prove that it legitimately siezed whatever is missing. (not just 'we seized it', but 'we seized it because...' - the TSA would also not have the final word on wether this was a valid reason.)
*Compulsory list to stop TSA goons pressuring people into not having a list drawn up. If a bag gets through undocumented; someone gets fired.
Infact, how long until some hotshot 'technical investigator' tries to claim that /dev/random IS a device that ought to be decryptable and mountable?
That's because they're both part of the empire. However, as both of those countries are going equally mad, I recommend New Zealand which is a little further behind on the madness stakes, even if their policies towards bankrupcy and nuclear power are crazy.
It ought to look more like a Tri-D chess board from Star Trek. (Pic)
And the US has executed people for equally dubious reasons in the past. The point at issue though is which is more civilized RIGHT NOW, and the one which doesn't execute people at all comes out on top there.
*shrug* any trial actually run on the basis of presumption of guilt will be tossed by the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR does stamp on lower courts, and is aguably better at it than SCOTUS.
Which is a MUCH better system than where the court is just a thoughtless tool which doesn't actually care about facts, only the relative strength of the cases. If one side presents something untrue and the other doesn't refute it then people get unjustly hurt - I WANT courts which are actually interested in the truth. The purely adverserial system in common-law courts is a heavy contributor to why they're so screwed up today. For instance; the Angela Cannings case in the UK, the primary prosecution witness made two major errors in his statistical argument, but unless the defence are on-the-ball enough to point it out (which it turns out that they weren't) the flawed evidence will stand (which it did) because it isn't (and wasn't) the court's prerogative to question it.
(S)He has an equal responsibility to look for evidence demonstrating the innocence of the accused - the adverserial system has prosecutors who have the sole aim of constructing a case to show that the accused is guilty, even if they aren't.
In any case, once you get to a court where there is a prosecutor, the inquisitorial judge is no longer there.
Watch me.
We should never have signed up to such a wide-ranging treaty (a fact which has become abundantly clear recently) - I expect our government to frustrate the process of complying with the treaty as much as possible whilst simultaneously working to get out of it.
The French justice system is a damn-sight more civilised than the US one.
Hey, I'm just saying what most of us are thinking.
I've owned every modern Blizz game except War1 & WoW, including all expansion sets and multiple copies of some. I was terribly excited when StarcraftII was announced - I was even willing to forgive them the BnetD thing, (since the whole project has gone open source and the community has essentially won,) and cough up full price for the game (rather than my usual tactic of getting it a year later when the price has dropped), but then they went one step scummier than before, forced through the courts the most insane argument in history to kill MMO Glider and left the door open for personally bankrupting its creator.
I, for one, will not be giving them another penny of my money. While I may have thought that they were losing it with War3, Blizz were still producing the best games this side of Chris Taylor and I'd have continued to buy them.
But now I'm just one more disillusioned player who'll be deliberately denying themselves these people's (still high quality) games, and I want to know how it feels to work your butt off producing a polished game, and have people refuse to play it no matter how good it is because your corporate overlords have been running the company's name through the mud. (Probably feels like you have a paycheck in the bank every month, but anyway...)
It could be argued that since the game-making powerhouses behind the Diablo1 era games have moved on, Blizzard has been inadequately clawing to stay at the top of the mountain of excellence. How do you feel about Blizz corporate throwing away most of gamers remaining goodwill by its inapparopriate and heavy-handed litigious bludgeoning of the creators of BnetD and MMO Glider?
It just seemed like the most relevant place to attach it.
Another variation. Print out 1000 random characters on a page, use stacks of pages like that - that's ~300 stacks. If the size of my school at that age is anything to go by, that's one stack per pupil, or 10 stacks per pupil in a class of 30.