I would guess, that the problem isn't in the standard corporate 6 month retention policy, but in not making an exception to the policy.
So, I would guess that Morgan has the usual X months retention policy, but someone forgot to flag these emails as possible evidence and therefore exempt from that policy.
You can delete whatever documents you want as long a you are not doing so when the documents could be needed for reasonably immenent litigation. So, if no one is reasonably [FN1] likely to sue you about email X, you can delete it. However, once someone has started to make legal threat that are credible, if you destory the email the judge can determine that you willfully destoried evidence.
[FN1] reasonable as in probable. Not, the planet COULD blow up tomorrow. Not, I COULD get hit by a bus. But, I ordered something on-line last week and it could arrive today.
PS: Anyone know a a decent Firefox (Win32) speel checker that works in forms liek Slashdot's? I really don't care enough to open Word to fix my typos and other errors.
I know a lot of other countries have $1 or $2 coins and they love them. Well, that is great for them. It is their country and they can run things however they want, there.
Here, we F'ing hate coins. All of them. Now maybe if I had a purse and had something to carry them in it would be different, but I don't (and you have to go on some mythic Homeric quest to find a masculine coin purse). My wallet doesn't have a place to put coins and most other people don't either.
Even if you carry a purse, it takes 20 minutes for you to get the Damn coins out when you need them. They have all fallen down to some obscure corner of the purse, underneath the 30 pounds of other crap in there. I always cringe when my wife pops up with "Oh, I have exact change." That means I am going to waste 20 minutes in line, instead of just throwing away the 19 cents in change I would have gotten.
Coins are just garbage. They are constantly falling out of my pant pockets. The way Docker-style and suit-style pants are cut the pocket opening is parallel with the ground when you sit. So, coins and other small objects (like the ever shrinking cell phone) slide right out. And, usually end up in the no-mans-land of my car between the seat and the arm rest. My only hope is blue jeans, which I am not allowed to wear to work because "I need to look professional."
I have 1 gallon jar filled with pennies. And then I have 3 other Mason/Ball jars for nickels, dimes, and quarters. They sit there until I either need to use the dimes for LightRail fairs or I feel the jars are too full and bundle them up for the bank deposit.
All I want to do anyhow is just pay with my plastic card anyhow. I know The Man can track everything you do with the card anyhow, but I don't care. As a heterosexual, white, male I have been told all my life that I am "The Man", and let me tell you it isn't as much fun as you'd think it would be. My Jewish friend, still very disappointed in his ability to control the media and be part of the vast Jewish conspiracy. But, I digress.
What the Hell can you buy for under $1 anyhow? When I was a kid I could at least buy a candy bar for $0.25, but not now, we have moved into the $0.55 & $0.69 echelon. When we could buy them for $0.50 I'd just buy 2. As an adult, everything I buy on impulse is in the $20-50 range. Coins don't help me with that.
We invented paper money for a reason. Stop whining about how much you want your $1 coins and how you hate Susan B Anthony and Sack-a-Nut-Sack (or something like that). A least they made the Sack coin golden. The Susan B was just a horrible mistake. And stop F'ing with my money for purposes of making it more collectable and popular. You are the US Treasury not the Franklin Mint. Really, this is the great idea from the US government to increase economics savings? "We'll print pretty coins and you can not spend them." It is bad enough you have turned my traditional serious paper money into Monopoly money with big cartoon heads.
I don't want your Damn coins. I know "Pennies make dollars" and someday they will come off my coin jar shelf and make me... oh, maybe $30. But, I and many other Americas just find them an annoying noisy nuisance.
I was stunned when I went to AU/NZ how much games & books cost. You appear to import books from the UK. I don't understnad why you don't just import from the US. LA is closer than London, and the books start off cheaper.
In AU my paperback cost AU $20 (US $15), and in NZ it cost NZ $28 (US $21). Compare this to the US prices of US $8 for either book. Plus, Amazon usually offers a discount of 0-30% (0% & 10% on these 2 items). Granted the UK covers are cooler, but they aren't $7-13 cooler.
I was wondering how many books/games I'd have to order from Amazon.com (US version) to make up for the shipping cost to AU/NZ. I already wait till my Amazon order hits the "Free Shipping" limit (US $25) anyhow. What would my limit rise too before I hit the break even point?
The $50 & $60 price points are supported by a tons of high school and college kids that have large amounts of discretionary income AND time. Even the first 2 years post-college I was able to pony up the high end prices.
Now, 33 with a kid on the way, I just don't have the time and energy for too many video games. I can easily wait for the $30 or $20 price point. And, I don't have cable/sat TV. My PC is my primary form of entertainment.
Yeah, I have the money for the $50/60 price point. I just don't have the time. Plus, I am old enough to remember when the premium price point was $40. (The problem of being "not cheap, just old" comes up with car buying too. "What do you mean a mid-level car costs $25k? I should be able to get it for $15k, max.") Recently when I purchase a game past the $40 price point, I feel ripped off.
Also, waiting has the benefit of making sure the game works. NWN was non-functional when it first came out (for me, YMMV), but 6 months of bug fixes later it was a fine. KOTOR2 is another example. If I had had the time I'd have gotten that day 1 due to KOTOR. Now that more reviews have come in from fans (as opposed to magazines) I feel that waiting till the $30/20 price point is a good move.
By the time I NEED a 6800 the price will have dropped to the low $200s.
If I wait the worst thing that happens is I finally finish Planescape: Torment and GTA3:VC.
I strongly recommend Outport. It does an extremely good job of converting MSFT Outlook attachments into something more readable (mbox I think, it has been a while). MS Outlook usually mangles attachments into some wrapper called TNEF.
Also, anyone know of a client program that will recursively create folders on an IMAP server (maybe a server issue. In which case, what server?) I had gotten over translating my years of Outlook email into something more universally readable, but I have so many nested folders that the inability to have the client recirsively create IMAP folders is an issue. Suggestions?
No, the USPTO allows CS people to sit for the Patent Bar now. It is a Category A degree now. Of course, previously you could petition your way in under Category B.
I certainly wouldn't waste my time in law school unless I could sit for the USPTO exam (or your land's equivalent).
This is the F'ing toughest exam I have ever taken. Makes the state bar look like a cake walk. Also no law school classes help you with this. Not even the Patent Law class. I suggest (and YMMV) you take the exam after you clerk and have some experience with the procedures of the PTO.
Typical question: Using the non-searchable PDF of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (a Yellow Pages telephone book sized document). Below are 5 sentences from the MPEP. We have added the word "not" to four of these sentences. Which sentence did we not alter?
Also, while it doesn't matter for CS & EEs, if you are going into the BioMed area, many inventors don't want to talk to you unless you have a PhD or Med degree.
There is no Global body that makes laws! There is no international legislature (the UN ain't it), there is no international monarch. They are the two groups that make laws. When there is a 1:1 correlation between cause & effect, if you don't have the cause (international legislature) you can't have the effect (international law). So despite the lies that a bandied about, international law doesn't exist.
What people often mean when they say "international law" is "treaties," but they usually have some agenda they are hiding behind and intentionally misleading you. I assume that since God is dead and humans can no longer appeal to the moral authority of God that they feel the need to appeal the moral authority of some other fictitious being. In this case, international law (aka global standards).
Now on to treaties. Treaties are just agreements between governments to enact laws. They aren't law by themselves. The US Constitution gives the President the authority to make treaties, but Congress gets to ratify and then make laws based upon them. So, the US & AU make a treaty to do W, X & Y When it gets run through the AU Parliament they don't like W. So they pass a law that allows for V, X & Y. That law is only enforceable in AU. It is an imperfect implementation of the treaty, but an implementation nonetheless. It is like a standard that is implemented but not fully. Same thing happens in the US Congress. But they pass law with X, Y & Z.
Now you have 2 national laws. A AU law. A US law. You don't have an international law. Why? No international legislature remember. You can sue in AU under the AU law, but not the US law. So in AU you are entitled to V, X & Y. You can sue in US under the US law, but not the AU law. So in US you are entitled to Z, X & Y. No where can you sue under the treaty. You never are entitled to W. Because te treaty (which entitled you to W) isn't a law, just an agreement to make a law. You can't sue in NZ under either the AU or US laws. Because NZ, has neither of these laws and their courts don't care about US or AU laws. Now we mis-use the term "treaty" to refer to both the AU & US laws collectively, but neither of them is really the treaty as negotiated by the PM/President.
Hey what about these international courts? Well, they are really arbitration bodies. They have no legal power beyond what the individual nations give them. The UK may pass a law giving ICC judgments full effect, but that is due to the UK ceding sovereignty to the ICC, not because the ICC is inherently morally superior or because of some international law (which doesn't exist remember). Now the US doesn't agree to cede its sovereignty to the ICC. So the ICC has no effect in the US.
Why no power beyond what the individual nations give them? It comes down to a concept called jurisdiction. See, ultimately might does make right. Not moral correctness, but the right to do something is ultimately based upon your ability to enforce that right. To enforce a court order to, for example, the ability to forcibly imprison someone, take their personal and real property from them, you need an army and a police system. Nations have these things. NGO bodies don't. Even the UN has no standing military. It relies on borrowing the military of its member nations. If the ICC has a judgement it wants enforced in the UK, it needs to get the approval of the UK government to use the UK police force to do that. Alone, the ICC is impotent.
Ultimately, every country acts unilaterally. Every country implements their own version of treaties. Every country decides whether or not to cede sovereignty to an international arbitration board.
Speaking of Bono... I suggest, if he doesn't stop coming over here and telling us how to fix things and giving sunglasses to the Pope, that we send Bob Seger over to Ireland to get them straightened out.
If that doesn't work, I think we'll be forced to send over Ted Nugent.
Why don't we create a national museum or series of museums to house and display things relating to our national history or just cool things in general.
You know we could put the museum(s) in a central location. Like the nation's capit[a|o]l.
Maybe we could get some really wealthy person to donate money for the museum(s). We could be nice and name the museum(s) after that person. Hell, I beat the guy could even be a British scientist. Congress could be a big help here.
And since it is a government sponsored museum, entry could be free, or a nominal charge.
Someday the museum(s) could grow to be the largest museum complex in the world. They could function as "an establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge."
I am thinking of moving to AU and the idea of dealing with the AU ISP just makes me cringe.
I'd rather have 128kbp/sec with Unlimited monthly download limits, than a 1Mb connection with a per month GB cap.
Since getting DSL, I live off of Internet radio and other things that while trivial in instantaneous bandwidth, add up to one Hell of a large monthly bandwidth rate. Also, as someone that telecommutes, I am constantly sending 3MB emails back and forth to work.
Plus, I am morally opposed to being charged twice (per second and per month) for bandwidth. Pick one metric or the other but not both.
A quick Google turned up this explanation (as opposed to writing my own).
Contributory infringement and vicarious liability are court-created theories (i.e., not specified in the Copyright Act) designed to hold a company liable for its participation in unlawful copying. The theory is analogous to the getaway driver in a robbery; everyone knows that the person who drives the getaway car will be in trouble, even if he does not rob the store. The imposition of secondary or indirect liability [1] is common throughout the law. Those who aid or abet the commission of wrongs, or who benefit from them, are frequently held liable.
Secondary liability is an especially important tool in copyright enforcement. Often, alleged contributory infringers may be in the best position to prevent or police violations. And suing many individual direct infringers may be impractical or expensive. However, secondary liability can create disincentives to innovation and entrepreneurship. Generally products have legitimate uses as well as infringing ones, and liability may inhibit firms from serving beneficial purposes. The Supreme Court's decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios limited the circumstances in which liability for contributory infringement may be imposed on a technology company simply because it provided a product that was used for infringement.
The copyright laws do not expressly provide for secondary liability for copyright infringement. But the courts, in a long series of cases, have imposed liability on those who facilitate or profit from copyright infringement. Thus there are two main strands of secondary liability for copyright infringement: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
The standard definition for contributory copyright infringement is when the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." [2] In other words, the record labels must not only show ownership of a valid copyright and unlawful copying but must show that the P2P company 1) had knowledge of the infringing activity and 2) materially contributed to the infringing conduct. Again, this is for the purpose of holding someone other than the infringer liable for copyright infringement.
VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
Vicarious liability is another means of holding someone liable for copyright infringement even when that person or party is not the one who did the infringing. In order to find a defendant liable under the theory of vicarious liability for the actions of an infringer, it must be shown that the defendant 1) has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts, and 2) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement.[3] Unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. However, courts have determined that the combination of the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and the receipt of a direct financial benefit from the infringement suffices to hold a defendant vicariously liable for copyright infringement, even if the defendant had no knowledge of the particular infringement.[4]
As much fun as American bashing is... let us not forget that these companies are international and hold copyrights in Finland and most of the rest of the world.
I doubt anyone was arrested in Finland for breaking solely US law. I am sure the Finnish police had a Finnish law to justify the arrests.
With their constant outsourcing (to AU & CN, to name two popular movie studio outsource winners), these "American copyright holders" don't seem too interested in actually doing the US any favours.
I don't know what you are reacting to but it certainly wasn't in my original post.
All parties discussed in the original post were US parties. I am fully aware that other countries have different parties with different names and different opinions. The AU versus CN Liberals come to mind. I also know about the US Democrats versus DE Social Democrats.
The point of the post was that unless you live in the country of Party X, you don't fully understand Party X. The What, Why, or How of Party X's agenda isn't something you can get from a news report (TV, web or paper).
And you certainly shouldn't be pledging allegiance to some foreign country's Party X when you don't fully understand what they really stand for and who supports them.
These people had a right to their opinions. They just should have been more informed before making their pledges to some foreign political party.
I don't know what you were on when you read in whatever "intolerance" you found. But it wasn't in the original post.
I agree with your assessment of how poorly (or should I say oddly) informed Non-Americans are.
I remember being in NZ and having an old man tell me "we're all Democrats here." My wife (Dem) & I (Rep) just laughed at him. Because, the demographics of who is or isn't Dem/Rep just didn't jive with that comment. This guy was a heterosexual, white male (68% of US hetro, white males are Rep). But add that he was a rural farmer, not just Christian but church going Christian in his 60s. If he had grown up in the US there is no doubt he would be a solid Republican, demographically speaking. Considering how poor NZ international news is, I wonder how he formed his views. Of course, politeness beat curiosity and I didn't quiz or argue with him. I was staying at his hostel and you really shouldn't get in political arguments with your host. Plus he was a really nice guy.
A German Physics Grad student also told be he was a Democrat. Then he proceeded to tell me how he believed in the Rep domestic policy. Oh, he didn't call it the Rep's domestic policy. He just told me how he believed in lowering taxes, being tough on crime, and that the Green house effect was a myth. (BTW, saying you're Dem and not believing in the Global Warming is like claiming you're Christian but you don't believe in God). When I laughed at him, and say he'd make a good Rep, he refused to believe it.
In short, non-Americans only see the foreign policy of the 2 parties. What they see of that is like looking at it through a funhouse mirror. What is distorted , enlarged or minimized is odd. They also bring their own preconceived notions when they are told Party X is Right, Party Y is Left. They also don't get what type of people support each party. Which since politics is essentially a popularity contest (like high school prom King & Queens) it matters not just what lies the candidates says about the issues, but who your friends and enemies support.
Um, in WW-I Russia quit. So saying that Russia won the war is a bit silly.
After the Czar fell, Germany had just shut down the Eastern front and, as a result, was about to double the number men on the Western front. They could have smashed thru the French lines and taken Paris. Thereby ending the war.
It was fresh American troops and Gen. Pershing's study of German tactics (specifically the concept of "firepower," which the French Generals in la-la-land refused to grasp), that caused the Germans to give up.
Remember in WW-I originally the Germans only sued for peace with the US. They wanted to continue fighting France & the UK. Only when the US refused the seperate peace did the war end.
Without US involvment in WW-II it would be hard to guess what would have happened. Too many things would change.
The Western front would have certainly shut down. Leaving UK & Germany in some kind of weird Warm War, with the UK too small to mount an invasion of Europe and the German's too distracted by Russia to care. The Germans may have been able (with their superior equipment, trainng and tactics) to have stopped the Russians mid-Poland. After all they would have only had 1 enemy to really worry about.
Remember the whole reason a North & South Korea exists is because China supported the Communist North.
So, if the US goes into NK, we are pretty much going to go mano-a-mano with the PRC for domination of the globe. Neither the US or the PRC really want that.... yet.
Screaming about "oil" and "aren't they the same" really ignores significant differences.
The Constitution doesn't say _how many_ judges are on the Supreme Court. The number of judges is set by Congress. The Constitution is very vague on many areas where the Judiciary is concerned (Article 3). The Founding Fathers just assumed Congress would fill in the details. And, they were right.
So, in 1935, the judges wouldn't sign off on the New Deal. Fine... Roosevelt (a Democrat I may add) decided he could get a majority on the Supreme Court, not be removing "bad" judges (which he would have to impeach them to do), but by ADDING "good" judges. All he needed to do was get Congress to sign off on it. And in 1937 he tried.
Now remember FDR was amazingly powerful. The only way they got him out of office was by him dying a natural death. In fact, he so scared them that even then they passed the 22nd Amendment (1951, which term limits Presidents) to keep another FDR from happening again.
So, Congress was pretty likely to do what FDR wanted and raise the number of judges in the SC to give FDR a majority. FDR was going to "pack the court."
Then 1 SC Judge (and I forget which one), who cared more about the traditions of the US then the current New Deal laws, went to FDR and said he'd vote for the New Deal laws if FDR backed off. Hence the phrase "A switch in time, saved 9". Nine being the then (and now) number of judges on the SC. FDR would have raised that to at least 11.
So, in the end the tradition of a 9 member Supreme Court was saved, but FDR got his way, and that was what he really wanted.
You cant patent "device for recording TV digitally", since those devices have existed since the 50s
Sure you can. You just do a "picture claim." You claim whatever a reasonable person in the 90s/00s would use to preform the general method. You patent 1 claim using an x86 processor. 1 claim using a HD. 1 claim using an optical removable drive (i.e CD/DVD). etc. etc. etc. You just keep patenting very specific embodiments until no one can reasonable design around your patents.
The 50s patent was old enough that your implementation using 90s/00s technoology is "novel" Your product is the 1st, so you can probably beat the "obvious" rejections.
Really, how many Apes do you think Jane Goodall has to look at before she figures out how apes behave? We are just another species of ape. How different are we? How many humans do you have to deal with to figure out what humans are like? 10, 100, 1000?
No we're all different. That is why mass marketing and political propoganda NEVER work.
I thought the Green Party usually contains a bunch of technology hating hippie Luddites? Who the Hell is trusting them you understand software, let alone software patents?
Slashdot Mirror
I would guess, that the problem isn't in the standard corporate 6 month retention policy, but in not making an exception to the policy.
So, I would guess that Morgan has the usual X months retention policy, but someone forgot to flag these emails as possible evidence and therefore exempt from that policy.
You can delete whatever documents you want as long a you are not doing so when the documents could be needed for reasonably immenent litigation. So, if no one is reasonably [FN1] likely to sue you about email X, you can delete it. However, once someone has started to make legal threat that are credible, if you destory the email the judge can determine that you willfully destoried evidence.
[FN1] reasonable as in probable.
Not, the planet COULD blow up tomorrow. Not, I COULD get hit by a bus. But, I ordered something on-line last week and it could arrive today.
PS:
Anyone know a a decent Firefox (Win32) speel checker that works in forms liek Slashdot's? I really don't care enough to open Word to fix my typos and other errors.
"With 400,000 American construction workers injured each year"
So, his idea is to replace 400,000 injured construction workers with 400,000+ unemployed construction workers?
I know a lot of other countries have $1 or $2 coins and they love them. Well, that is great for them. It is their country and they can run things however they want, there.
... oh, maybe $30. But, I and many other Americas just find them an annoying noisy nuisance.
Here, we F'ing hate coins. All of them. Now maybe if I had a purse and had something to carry them in it would be different, but I don't (and you have to go on some mythic Homeric quest to find a masculine coin purse). My wallet doesn't have a place to put coins and most other people don't either.
Even if you carry a purse, it takes 20 minutes for you to get the Damn coins out when you need them. They have all fallen down to some obscure corner of the purse, underneath the 30 pounds of other crap in there. I always cringe when my wife pops up with "Oh, I have exact change." That means I am going to waste 20 minutes in line, instead of just throwing away the 19 cents in change I would have gotten.
Coins are just garbage. They are constantly falling out of my pant pockets. The way Docker-style and suit-style pants are cut the pocket opening is parallel with the ground when you sit. So, coins and other small objects (like the ever shrinking cell phone) slide right out. And, usually end up in the no-mans-land of my car between the seat and the arm rest. My only hope is blue jeans, which I am not allowed to wear to work because "I need to look professional."
I have 1 gallon jar filled with pennies. And then I have 3 other Mason/Ball jars for nickels, dimes, and quarters. They sit there until I either need to use the dimes for LightRail fairs or I feel the jars are too full and bundle them up for the bank deposit.
All I want to do anyhow is just pay with my plastic card anyhow. I know The Man can track everything you do with the card anyhow, but I don't care. As a heterosexual, white, male I have been told all my life that I am "The Man", and let me tell you it isn't as much fun as you'd think it would be. My Jewish friend, still very disappointed in his ability to control the media and be part of the vast Jewish conspiracy. But, I digress.
What the Hell can you buy for under $1 anyhow? When I was a kid I could at least buy a candy bar for $0.25, but not now, we have moved into the $0.55 & $0.69 echelon. When we could buy them for $0.50 I'd just buy 2. As an adult, everything I buy on impulse is in the $20-50 range. Coins don't help me with that.
We invented paper money for a reason. Stop whining about how much you want your $1 coins and how you hate Susan B Anthony and Sack-a-Nut-Sack (or something like that). A least they made the Sack coin golden. The Susan B was just a horrible mistake. And stop F'ing with my money for purposes of making it more collectable and popular. You are the US Treasury not the Franklin Mint. Really, this is the great idea from the US government to increase economics savings? "We'll print pretty coins and you can not spend them." It is bad enough you have turned my traditional serious paper money into Monopoly money with big cartoon heads.
I don't want your Damn coins. I know "Pennies make dollars" and someday they will come off my coin jar shelf and make me
I was stunned when I went to AU/NZ how much games & books cost. You appear to import books from the UK. I don't understnad why you don't just import from the US. LA is closer than London, and the books start off cheaper.
In AU my paperback cost AU $20 (US $15), and in NZ it cost NZ $28 (US $21). Compare this to the US prices of US $8 for either book. Plus, Amazon usually offers a discount of 0-30% (0% & 10% on these 2 items). Granted the UK covers are cooler, but they aren't $7-13 cooler.
I was wondering how many books/games I'd have to order from Amazon.com (US version) to make up for the shipping cost to AU/NZ. I already wait till my Amazon order hits the "Free Shipping" limit (US $25) anyhow. What would my limit rise too before I hit the break even point?
Has anyone tried this?
Agreed.
The $50 & $60 price points are supported by a tons of high school and college kids that have large amounts of discretionary income AND time. Even the first 2 years post-college I was able to pony up the high end prices.
Now, 33 with a kid on the way, I just don't have the time and energy for too many video games. I can easily wait for the $30 or $20 price point. And, I don't have cable/sat TV. My PC is my primary form of entertainment.
Yeah, I have the money for the $50/60 price point. I just don't have the time. Plus, I am old enough to remember when the premium price point was $40. (The problem of being "not cheap, just old" comes up with car buying too. "What do you mean a mid-level car costs $25k? I should be able to get it for $15k, max.") Recently when I purchase a game past the $40 price point, I feel ripped off.
Also, waiting has the benefit of making sure the game works. NWN was non-functional when it first came out (for me, YMMV), but 6 months of bug fixes later it was a fine. KOTOR2 is another example. If I had had the time I'd have gotten that day 1 due to KOTOR. Now that more reviews have come in from fans (as opposed to magazines) I feel that waiting till the $30/20 price point is a good move.
By the time I NEED a 6800 the price will have dropped to the low $200s.
If I wait the worst thing that happens is I finally finish Planescape: Torment and GTA3:VC.
I strongly recommend Outport. It does an extremely good job of converting MSFT Outlook attachments into something more readable (mbox I think, it has been a while). MS Outlook usually mangles attachments into some wrapper called TNEF.
Also, anyone know of a client program that will recursively create folders on an IMAP server (maybe a server issue. In which case, what server?)
I had gotten over translating my years of Outlook email into something more universally readable, but I have so many nested folders that the inability to have the client recirsively create IMAP folders is an issue. Suggestions?
No, the USPTO allows CS people to sit for the Patent Bar now. It is a Category A degree now. Of course, previously you could petition your way in under Category B.
I certainly wouldn't waste my time in law school unless I could sit for the USPTO exam (or your land's equivalent).
This is the F'ing toughest exam I have ever taken. Makes the state bar look like a cake walk. Also no law school classes help you with this. Not even the Patent Law class. I suggest (and YMMV) you take the exam after you clerk and have some experience with the procedures of the PTO.
Typical question:
Using the non-searchable PDF of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (a Yellow Pages telephone book sized document). Below are 5 sentences from the MPEP. We have added the word "not" to four of these sentences. Which sentence did we not alter?
Also, while it doesn't matter for CS & EEs, if you are going into the BioMed area, many inventors don't want to talk to you unless you have a PhD or Med degree.
There is no Global body that makes laws!
There is no international legislature (the UN ain't it), there is no international monarch. They are the two groups that make laws. When there is a 1:1 correlation between cause & effect, if you don't have the cause (international legislature) you can't have the effect (international law).
So despite the lies that a bandied about, international law doesn't exist.
What people often mean when they say "international law" is "treaties," but they usually have some agenda they are hiding behind and intentionally misleading you. I assume that since God is dead and humans can no longer appeal to the moral authority of God that they feel the need to appeal the moral authority of some other fictitious being. In this case, international law (aka global standards).
Now on to treaties.
Treaties are just agreements between governments to enact laws. They aren't law by themselves. The US Constitution gives the President the authority to make treaties, but Congress gets to ratify and then make laws based upon them.
So, the US & AU make a treaty to do W, X & Y
When it gets run through the AU Parliament they don't like W. So they pass a law that allows for V, X & Y. That law is only enforceable in AU. It is an imperfect implementation of the treaty, but an implementation nonetheless. It is like a standard that is implemented but not fully.
Same thing happens in the US Congress. But they pass law with X, Y & Z.
Now you have 2 national laws. A AU law. A US law. You don't have an international law. Why? No international legislature remember.
You can sue in AU under the AU law, but not the US law. So in AU you are entitled to V, X & Y.
You can sue in US under the US law, but not the AU law. So in US you are entitled to Z, X & Y.
No where can you sue under the treaty. You never are entitled to W. Because te treaty (which entitled you to W) isn't a law, just an agreement to make a law.
You can't sue in NZ under either the AU or US laws. Because NZ, has neither of these laws and their courts don't care about US or AU laws.
Now we mis-use the term "treaty" to refer to both the AU & US laws collectively, but neither of them is really the treaty as negotiated by the PM/President.
Hey what about these international courts?
Well, they are really arbitration bodies.
They have no legal power beyond what the individual nations give them.
The UK may pass a law giving ICC judgments full effect, but that is due to the UK ceding sovereignty to the ICC, not because the ICC is inherently morally superior or because of some international law (which doesn't exist remember).
Now the US doesn't agree to cede its sovereignty to the ICC. So the ICC has no effect in the US.
Why no power beyond what the individual nations give them?
It comes down to a concept called jurisdiction.
See, ultimately might does make right. Not moral correctness, but the right to do something is ultimately based upon your ability to enforce that right.
To enforce a court order to, for example, the ability to forcibly imprison someone, take their personal and real property from them, you need an army and a police system. Nations have these things. NGO bodies don't. Even the UN has no standing military. It relies on borrowing the military of its member nations.
If the ICC has a judgement it wants enforced in the UK, it needs to get the approval of the UK government to use the UK police force to do that. Alone, the ICC is impotent.
Ultimately, every country acts unilaterally. Every country implements their own version of treaties. Every country decides whether or not to cede sovereignty to an international arbitration board.
They could get a U2 in there
...
Speaking of Bono
I suggest, if he doesn't stop coming over here and telling us how to fix things and giving sunglasses to the Pope, that we send Bob Seger over to Ireland to get them straightened out.
If that doesn't work, I think we'll be forced to send over Ted Nugent.
Hey, here is an idea.
Why don't we create a national museum or series of museums to house and display things relating to our national history or just cool things in general.
You know we could put the museum(s) in a central location. Like the nation's capit[a|o]l.
Maybe we could get some really wealthy person to donate money for the museum(s). We could be nice and name the museum(s) after that person.
Hell, I beat the guy could even be a British scientist. Congress could be a big help here.
And since it is a government sponsored museum, entry could be free, or a nominal charge.
Someday the museum(s) could grow to be the largest museum complex in the world. They could function as "an establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge."
Yeah, that would be great.
I am thinking of moving to AU and the idea of dealing with the AU ISP just makes me cringe.
I'd rather have 128kbp/sec with Unlimited monthly download limits, than a 1Mb connection with a per month GB cap.
Since getting DSL, I live off of Internet radio and other things that while trivial in instantaneous bandwidth, add up to one Hell of a large monthly bandwidth rate. Also, as someone that telecommutes, I am constantly sending 3MB emails back and forth to work.
Plus, I am morally opposed to being charged twice (per second and per month) for bandwidth. Pick one metric or the other but not both.
A quick Google turned up this explanation (as opposed to writing my own).
Contributory infringement and vicarious liability are court-created theories (i.e., not specified in the Copyright Act) designed to hold a company liable for its participation in unlawful copying. The theory is analogous to the getaway driver in a robbery; everyone knows that the person who drives the getaway car will be in trouble, even if he does not rob the store. The imposition of secondary or indirect liability [1] is common throughout the law. Those who aid or abet the commission of wrongs, or who benefit from them, are frequently held liable.
Secondary liability is an especially important tool in copyright enforcement. Often, alleged contributory infringers may be in the best position to prevent or police violations. And suing many individual direct infringers may be impractical or expensive. However, secondary liability can create disincentives to innovation and entrepreneurship. Generally products have legitimate uses as well as infringing ones, and liability may inhibit firms from serving beneficial purposes. The Supreme Court's decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios limited the circumstances in which liability for contributory infringement may be imposed on a technology company simply because it provided a product that was used for infringement.
The copyright laws do not expressly provide for secondary liability for copyright infringement. But the courts, in a long series of cases, have imposed liability on those who facilitate or profit from copyright infringement. Thus there are two main strands of secondary liability for copyright infringement: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
The standard definition for contributory copyright infringement is when the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." [2] In other words, the record labels must not only show ownership of a valid copyright and unlawful copying but must show that the P2P company 1) had knowledge of the infringing activity and 2) materially contributed to the infringing conduct. Again, this is for the purpose of holding someone other than the infringer liable for copyright infringement.
VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
Vicarious liability is another means of holding someone liable for copyright infringement even when that person or party is not the one who did the infringing. In order to find a defendant liable under the theory of vicarious liability for the actions of an infringer, it must be shown that the defendant 1) has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts, and 2) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement.[3] Unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. However, courts have determined that the combination of the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and the receipt of a direct financial benefit from the infringement suffices to hold a defendant vicariously liable for copyright infringement, even if the defendant had no knowledge of the particular infringement.[4]
As much fun as American bashing is ... let us not forget that these companies are international and hold copyrights in Finland and most of the rest of the world.
I doubt anyone was arrested in Finland for breaking solely US law. I am sure the Finnish police had a Finnish law to justify the arrests.
With their constant outsourcing (to AU & CN, to name two popular movie studio outsource winners), these "American copyright holders" don't seem too interested in actually doing the US any favours.
Hey, stromthurman is correct!
(Post #10690800 below)
It works now. The UI is different and everything.
Thanks stromthurman.
By modifying your preferences, however, you can remove all of the politics stories from your front page.
I checked the "No Politcs" box in preferences and I still get this crap on the front page. (And still look at despite my better judgement.)
Fortunatly the "michael" storys are gone though.
I don't know what you are reacting to but it certainly wasn't in my original post.
All parties discussed in the original post were US parties.
I am fully aware that other countries have different parties with different names and different opinions. The AU versus CN Liberals come to mind. I also know about the US Democrats versus DE Social Democrats.
The point of the post was that unless you live in the country of Party X, you don't fully understand Party X. The What, Why, or How of Party X's agenda isn't something you can get from a news report (TV, web or paper).
And you certainly shouldn't be pledging allegiance to some foreign country's Party X when you don't fully understand what they really stand for and who supports them.
These people had a right to their opinions. They just should have been more informed before making their pledges to some foreign political party.
I don't know what you were on when you read in whatever "intolerance" you found. But it wasn't in the original post.
I agree with your assessment of how poorly (or should I say oddly) informed Non-Americans are.
I remember being in NZ and having an old man tell me "we're all Democrats here." My wife (Dem) & I (Rep) just laughed at him. Because, the demographics of who is or isn't Dem/Rep just didn't jive with that comment. This guy was a heterosexual, white male (68% of US hetro, white males are Rep). But add that he was a rural farmer, not just Christian but church going Christian in his 60s. If he had grown up in the US there is no doubt he would be a solid Republican, demographically speaking.
Considering how poor NZ international news is, I wonder how he formed his views. Of course, politeness beat curiosity and I didn't quiz or argue with him. I was staying at his hostel and you really shouldn't get in political arguments with your host. Plus he was a really nice guy.
A German Physics Grad student also told be he was a Democrat. Then he proceeded to tell me how he believed in the Rep domestic policy. Oh, he didn't call it the Rep's domestic policy. He just told me how he believed in lowering taxes, being tough on crime, and that the Green house effect was a myth. (BTW, saying you're Dem and not believing in the Global Warming is like claiming you're Christian but you don't believe in God). When I laughed at him, and say he'd make a good Rep, he refused to believe it.
In short, non-Americans only see the foreign policy of the 2 parties. What they see of that is like looking at it through a funhouse mirror. What is distorted , enlarged or minimized is odd.
They also bring their own preconceived notions when they are told Party X is Right, Party Y is Left. They also don't get what type of people support each party. Which since politics is essentially a popularity contest (like high school prom King & Queens) it matters not just what lies the candidates says about the issues, but who your friends and enemies support.
Um, in WW-I Russia quit.
So saying that Russia won the war is a bit silly.
After the Czar fell, Germany had just shut down the Eastern front and, as a result, was about to double the number men on the Western front. They could have smashed thru the French lines and taken Paris. Thereby ending the war.
It was fresh American troops and Gen. Pershing's study of German tactics (specifically the concept of "firepower," which the French Generals in la-la-land refused to grasp), that caused the Germans to give up.
Remember in WW-I originally the Germans only sued for peace with the US. They wanted to continue fighting France & the UK. Only when the US refused the seperate peace did the war end.
Without US involvment in WW-II it would be hard to guess what would have happened. Too many things would change.
The Western front would have certainly shut down. Leaving UK & Germany in some kind of weird Warm War, with the UK too small to mount an invasion of Europe and the German's too distracted by Russia to care.
The Germans may have been able (with their superior equipment, trainng and tactics) to have stopped the Russians mid-Poland. After all they would have only had 1 enemy to really worry about.
No I didn't, but you are correct.
Embarrassing that.
Remember the whole reason a North & South Korea exists is because China supported the Communist North.
... yet.
So, if the US goes into NK, we are pretty much going to go mano-a-mano with the PRC for domination of the globe. Neither the US or the PRC really want that.
Screaming about "oil" and "aren't they the same" really ignores significant differences.
Roosevelt got exactly what he wanted.
... Roosevelt (a Democrat I may add) decided he could get a majority on the Supreme Court, not be removing "bad" judges (which he would have to impeach them to do), but by ADDING "good" judges. All he needed to do was get Congress to sign off on it. And in 1937 he tried.
The Constitution doesn't say _how many_ judges are on the Supreme Court. The number of judges is set by Congress. The Constitution is very vague on many areas where the Judiciary is concerned (Article 3). The Founding Fathers just assumed Congress would fill in the details. And, they were right.
So, in 1935, the judges wouldn't sign off on the New Deal. Fine
Now remember FDR was amazingly powerful. The only way they got him out of office was by him dying a natural death. In fact, he so scared them that even then they passed the 22nd Amendment (1951, which term limits Presidents) to keep another FDR from happening again.
So, Congress was pretty likely to do what FDR wanted and raise the number of judges in the SC to give FDR a majority. FDR was going to "pack the court."
Then 1 SC Judge (and I forget which one), who cared more about the traditions of the US then the current New Deal laws, went to FDR and said he'd vote for the New Deal laws if FDR backed off. Hence the phrase "A switch in time, saved 9". Nine being the then (and now) number of judges on the SC. FDR would have raised that to at least 11.
So, in the end the tradition of a 9 member Supreme Court was saved, but FDR got his way, and that was what he really wanted.
So let me see if I get this right, they take some guy's crappy lo-rez VHS tape off his 1985 video camera and broadcast it in HD?
Now I can see broadcasting those hot chicks they have host the show in HD.
You know, everytime I look at the AU newspapers they are filled with hot chicks, usually 9s sometimes even an 11.
I am so moving to AU. However, I am married. So, maybe I'll just send my penis over.
You cant patent "device for recording TV digitally", since those devices have existed since the 50s
Sure you can. You just do a "picture claim." You claim whatever a reasonable person in the 90s/00s would use to preform the general method. You patent 1 claim using an x86 processor. 1 claim using a HD. 1 claim using an optical removable drive (i.e CD/DVD). etc. etc. etc.
You just keep patenting very specific embodiments until no one can reasonable design around your patents.
The 50s patent was old enough that your implementation using 90s/00s technoology is "novel"
Your product is the 1st, so you can probably beat the "obvious" rejections.
Repeat after me, we are all individuals
Really, how many Apes do you think Jane Goodall has to look at before she figures out how apes behave?
We are just another species of ape. How different are we? How many humans do you have to deal with to figure out what humans are like?
10, 100, 1000?
No we're all different. That is why mass marketing and political propoganda NEVER work.
I thought the Green Party usually contains a bunch of technology hating hippie Luddites? Who the Hell is trusting them you understand software, let alone software patents?