To all legislators:
Please leave the internet alone. It works well. People smarter than you created it. It has revolutionized our world. Parents need to take care of their kids, not you. The more changes you make, the more likely you are to break something. Here's a deal. You don't need to get in the news to get my vote. Stay out of the news for a year, and I'll vote for you.
Framing your opposition with a deragatory name is always a constructive way to being intelligent discourse. Anyway, what is the production of the US versus consumption? I agree that we should be looking at ways to become more efficient and decrease our consumption, but why do we measure consumption versus population as opposed to consumption versus production? Isn't that a better measure of our efficiency? If we are more efficient, doesn't it make sense to have the United States consuming more resources and exporting our production to other countries? Isn't that the point of globilization? Production shifts to where it is more efficient on a relative basis without regards to national borders?
Since he is a lawyer, and answering these questions as a lawyer, he has to be extremely careful. When lawyers actually write answers, they are generally four to five page memos with many citations to include all of the conflicting case law and possibilities. If he were to write something here, then someone get sued and use it as a defense because it was not understood completely, he would be open to a malpractice suit. He was attempting to keep the answers short enough to be useful, while at the same time protecting himself. These lawyers produced the answers for free. I am sure if you wanted an in-depth answer, they would write you one and bill you per their normal rates, as opposed to being free, as they did here.
The vast majority of disputes are solved this way, which is a good thing. It reduces the costs created by taking a case to court, and frees up the courts to deal with other, more important disputes.
So the EU is concerned that MS is going to stifle the cottage industry that sprang up from MS's inability to secure its products? To me, if you start a business based on another company's mistakes, you need to be ready for when that company fixes its mistakes.
No, but it does apply to filing the lawsuit in the first place. Also, the reference to criminal would be contempt of court for not allowing full discovery.
The RIAA thought they had something at least plausible enough to go to court. Obviously they don't, and I hope the judge censures them for it. There is no point in overreacting until the judge makes a ruling. If he does find in favor of the RIAA, then it will be time to get upset. Don't blame the lawyers. Lawyers merely represent their client. RIAA is the one throwing money made from the declining sales of CDs at pointless lawsuits. Also, shouldn't we blame their tech guys for going out and finding these people on file sharing networks and providing IP addresses for the RIAA to sue? There is plenty of blame to go around.
The US has liberal pleading rules, and as such, has wide discovery as well. This is good when a small person tries to sue a large company. Say a company is dumping chemicals into your water, and your kid gets cancer. There is no way the company is going to give you the evidence you need to get a civil verdict. That is why you can file a claim with little to no evidence, and then through discovery, the court can force the company to provide you with types and quantities of what they are dumping into the water. If they refuse, they can be brought up on criminal charges. Rule 11 in the federal laws of civil procedures is designed to prevent lawyers from filing civil suits just to get discovery priviliges. If I was the gentleman in question, I would ask my lawyer to evaluate a Rule 11 charge in addition to the summary ruling. I am reading the rule right now, and a judge could impose on the party involved monetary penalties that would prevent the conduct in the future. I don't see that happening, but even if the judge just fined the law firm representing the RIAA, it would make them less likely to help the RIAA in the future.
I just asked my crim law professor because were discussing a similar issue today in class (Doe v. City of Lafayette). It is acceptable to do this in civil courts, or even civil actions outside of court. This does not violate double jeopardy. The thing is, the standard of evidence won't be a prepondarance as in normal civil litigation. They will have a standard of proof very similar to criminal court. Similar statutes have already been upheld by the supreme court, so look for this one to make it as well, unless a creative lawyer can find another grounds to appeal it on.
Is religion the cause of the wars, or is it an excuse for people to start wars for their gain? Even if it provides an easy excuse, would those same people be stopped by the lack of religion, or would they find another reason to start wars? Jews in WWII were executed as much for being a racial group as a religious group. Also, when looking at the damage caused by religion, you have to look at the good things that it brought society, such as maintaining some written knowledge during the dark ages.
This seems to help the politicians out. I don't mean by directing money to their coffers, although I am sure that will be a result as well, but by minimizing the public view of patent issues. Most people in the public don't understand the issues with patents, and it only gets their attention when they may lose an important service, such as Blackberry. These rules will reduce litigation and public awareness of patent issues. This helps the politicians, since they can then focus on important things, like restricting video games.
The company responsible for running E3 has closed at least two sattelite offices and laid off the staff. Evidently it was not their choice, and this is damage control. No one really knows how next year's E3 will work out, and it may not survive to the year after that.
There is a far more serious problem with the comment, and that is blaming Soldiers for the war. If Soldiers were responsible for the war, then that would imply that they had control over the Army, instead of civilians. I am not talking about individual actions within the war, but the war itself. As soon as Soldiers begin questioning civilian oversight, then we are on the way to a military dictatorship. Also, remember that this president was elected by the widest margin in 12 years after he started the war, so everyone in in America bears some responsibility for Iraq, regardless of how you feel about it now.
Slashdot Mirror
To all legislators:
Please leave the internet alone. It works well. People smarter than you created it. It has revolutionized our world. Parents need to take care of their kids, not you. The more changes you make, the more likely you are to break something. Here's a deal. You don't need to get in the news to get my vote. Stay out of the news for a year, and I'll vote for you.
Framing your opposition with a deragatory name is always a constructive way to being intelligent discourse. Anyway, what is the production of the US versus consumption? I agree that we should be looking at ways to become more efficient and decrease our consumption, but why do we measure consumption versus population as opposed to consumption versus production? Isn't that a better measure of our efficiency? If we are more efficient, doesn't it make sense to have the United States consuming more resources and exporting our production to other countries? Isn't that the point of globilization? Production shifts to where it is more efficient on a relative basis without regards to national borders?
This made me laugh out loud. If only I had mod points right now.
How about top three agencies to abolish?
Since he is a lawyer, and answering these questions as a lawyer, he has to be extremely careful. When lawyers actually write answers, they are generally four to five page memos with many citations to include all of the conflicting case law and possibilities. If he were to write something here, then someone get sued and use it as a defense because it was not understood completely, he would be open to a malpractice suit. He was attempting to keep the answers short enough to be useful, while at the same time protecting himself. These lawyers produced the answers for free. I am sure if you wanted an in-depth answer, they would write you one and bill you per their normal rates, as opposed to being free, as they did here.
The vast majority of disputes are solved this way, which is a good thing. It reduces the costs created by taking a case to court, and frees up the courts to deal with other, more important disputes.
So the EU is concerned that MS is going to stifle the cottage industry that sprang up from MS's inability to secure its products? To me, if you start a business based on another company's mistakes, you need to be ready for when that company fixes its mistakes.
No, but it does apply to filing the lawsuit in the first place. Also, the reference to criminal would be contempt of court for not allowing full discovery.
The RIAA thought they had something at least plausible enough to go to court. Obviously they don't, and I hope the judge censures them for it. There is no point in overreacting until the judge makes a ruling. If he does find in favor of the RIAA, then it will be time to get upset. Don't blame the lawyers. Lawyers merely represent their client. RIAA is the one throwing money made from the declining sales of CDs at pointless lawsuits. Also, shouldn't we blame their tech guys for going out and finding these people on file sharing networks and providing IP addresses for the RIAA to sue? There is plenty of blame to go around.
The US has liberal pleading rules, and as such, has wide discovery as well. This is good when a small person tries to sue a large company. Say a company is dumping chemicals into your water, and your kid gets cancer. There is no way the company is going to give you the evidence you need to get a civil verdict. That is why you can file a claim with little to no evidence, and then through discovery, the court can force the company to provide you with types and quantities of what they are dumping into the water. If they refuse, they can be brought up on criminal charges. Rule 11 in the federal laws of civil procedures is designed to prevent lawyers from filing civil suits just to get discovery priviliges. If I was the gentleman in question, I would ask my lawyer to evaluate a Rule 11 charge in addition to the summary ruling. I am reading the rule right now, and a judge could impose on the party involved monetary penalties that would prevent the conduct in the future. I don't see that happening, but even if the judge just fined the law firm representing the RIAA, it would make them less likely to help the RIAA in the future.
I just asked my crim law professor because were discussing a similar issue today in class (Doe v. City of Lafayette). It is acceptable to do this in civil courts, or even civil actions outside of court. This does not violate double jeopardy. The thing is, the standard of evidence won't be a prepondarance as in normal civil litigation. They will have a standard of proof very similar to criminal court. Similar statutes have already been upheld by the supreme court, so look for this one to make it as well, unless a creative lawyer can find another grounds to appeal it on.
Now that would be impressive. A lego robot that could get bored by Tic-Tac-Toe and learn to play chess.
I'm not sure that the Bush Admin has anything to do with it. The DCMA was passed under Clinton, right? And the SG is arguing against this issue.
Is religion the cause of the wars, or is it an excuse for people to start wars for their gain? Even if it provides an easy excuse, would those same people be stopped by the lack of religion, or would they find another reason to start wars? Jews in WWII were executed as much for being a racial group as a religious group. Also, when looking at the damage caused by religion, you have to look at the good things that it brought society, such as maintaining some written knowledge during the dark ages.
This seems to help the politicians out. I don't mean by directing money to their coffers, although I am sure that will be a result as well, but by minimizing the public view of patent issues. Most people in the public don't understand the issues with patents, and it only gets their attention when they may lose an important service, such as Blackberry. These rules will reduce litigation and public awareness of patent issues. This helps the politicians, since they can then focus on important things, like restricting video games.
The company responsible for running E3 has closed at least two sattelite offices and laid off the staff. Evidently it was not their choice, and this is damage control. No one really knows how next year's E3 will work out, and it may not survive to the year after that.
There is a far more serious problem with the comment, and that is blaming Soldiers for the war. If Soldiers were responsible for the war, then that would imply that they had control over the Army, instead of civilians. I am not talking about individual actions within the war, but the war itself. As soon as Soldiers begin questioning civilian oversight, then we are on the way to a military dictatorship. Also, remember that this president was elected by the widest margin in 12 years after he started the war, so everyone in in America bears some responsibility for Iraq, regardless of how you feel about it now.