Thankfully, fingerprints on the car didn't implicate me
It is your car. Your finger prints should be all over it with impunity. Heck, you could use your finger to write "I DID IT" in the dirty wheel well and they would have nothing on you.
In essence, you got police help because you were victim X of Y, not simply victim 1. I know you said that, but this is the Cliff's Notes version.
Get used to it, the more you know, the better you can help yourself.
Certainly true to a point. Last year I was convinced I had cervical cancer after typing my symptoms into the intertubes.
In a panic I went to my doctor. I was relieved when he explained that people with a penis generally are immune to cervical cancer. Who knew?:)
-----
Point being, an amateur can accurately diagnose a more common issue (i.e. higher odds of occurring), but a professional is better able to pick the zebra out of a herd of horses.
No, that is what you _desire_ from your doctor. What you should expect is a level of effort commensurate with the reduced compensation rate 'negotiated' between your insurance carrier and the physician's practice.
Pathologists and lab work in general make money on volume of results, not quality. Mere ethics are supposed to maintain quality.
Now, free medical care for everyone is better how?
BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car. More Supreme Court cases then I can list here have affirmed this multiple times.
BAD ADVICE!
That simple action if very jurisdictionally (is that even a real word?) dependent.
I don't think we'll ever be out of the woods. I believe they will pursue that course no matter what happens in the courts. From their perspective cost shifting to your benefit is a bad thing how?
The fear campaign can be just as effective by using the courts the _correct_ way. However, you are quite correct the profitable part of their scheme will be over.
Again, your focus is way to narrow. Exactly what I was trying to highlight.
I'll slow this down for more clarity.
In the context of the larger picture, the judge, I believe, was trying to use a court rule in such a way as to serve the greater public interest by exposing their (RIAA) cross jurisdiction abusive machinations.
Kind of like how an appeals court will dodge a constitutional issue in a New York minute in favor of some minuscule meaningless procedural misstep, or obscure legal theory derived from an 1850 cow case.
So, yes you are correct that my question makes no sense when you willfully choose to ignore the issue in any larger context.
Now for the car analogy. To me it is the difference between being the mosquito watching the windshield approach and the hapless driver dreading the impending windshield cleaning.
The majority of the practice of law is concerned with such minutia, most often for good reason. However, the lay person likes to see 'lay' justice served and not be bogged down in red clay. Watching the RIAA march up and down the map making a mockery of federal courts has not been a fun thing to watch and it is past time that it be brought to an end.
Actually, I did RTFM, and another one on the Reuters website before the UK article was posted here. The jist of both is concentration on new lines (using existing right of ways) with _some_ augmentation of existing infrastructure.
I still believe it would be more productive and cheaper to work with existing infrastructure instead of rip and replace.
If you want something visionary, how about supporting large scale consumer adoption of small regional airports and new, small advanced planes that take far fewer people but connect small airports all over with mass transit in each city? It's like the dream of the flying car but with practicality behind it and yields a lot more flexibility.
I think you missed the part where nobody (politicians) is interested in the actual stated goal.;)
It is a great thought experiment though, what if the world were ran and built by engineers...
The problem is that the U.S. is huge. There aren't too many routes that make high speed rail profitable.
I suppose a number of lines going to Vegas and Florida could come close to breaking even.
Let me be the first to name this a Train To Nowhere.
We already have Amtrak. Remove grade crossings and update the signaling and anti-tampering systems and the locomotives can go 'high speed' on existing infrastructure.
Finally, it is quite hard to have 'high speed' rail when it has to stop in every congressional district multiple times.
The lawyer types are translating for us ignorant techies. The lawyer types are focusing on the procedural aspect as to why the broadcasting in real time is a Bad Thing.
But as an ignorant techie, what I want to know is why has the RIAA been allowed to bitch slap federal courts across the country with impunity? It would seem to me that the judge in this case is actually trying to widely disseminate the tactics of the RIAA for other jurists to consider. A legal countermeasure to the bastardization of the current system, basically.
Yet, the issue is bogged down by arguing over procedural bickering. You'd think this whole thing was being written in lisp, or pascal.
The implication is that Google is destroying said books after scanning. The problem is that no one nowhere has actually said this.
AFAICT there is nothing stopping another entity from creating their own copyrightable anthology of orphaned works. Simplistic solution, yet not impossible to achieve in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
Thankfully, fingerprints on the car didn't implicate me
It is your car. Your finger prints should be all over it with impunity. Heck, you could use your finger to write "I DID IT" in the dirty wheel well and they would have nothing on you.
In essence, you got police help because you were victim X of Y, not simply victim 1. I know you said that, but this is the Cliff's Notes version.
I took her to our local GP who actually admitted that he didn't know what it was, BUT STIIL PRESCRIBED a topical steroidal cream
Uh, you realize that one way to help with a diagnosis is to give the patient some drugs and look at the response, right?
Uh, not if incorrect treatment could aggravate the condition, or KILL the patient.
Granted, prescribing a topical steroid is pretty generic for skin irritations, yet can aggravate skin cancer, and even cause nerve damage.
IANAD
Get used to it, the more you know, the better you can help yourself.
Certainly true to a point. Last year I was convinced I had cervical cancer after typing my symptoms into the intertubes.
:)
In a panic I went to my doctor. I was relieved when he explained that people with a penis generally are immune to cervical cancer. Who knew?
-----
Point being, an amateur can accurately diagnose a more common issue (i.e. higher odds of occurring), but a professional is better able to pick the zebra out of a herd of horses.
That's what I would expect from my doctors!!!
No, that is what you _desire_ from your doctor. What you should expect is a level of effort commensurate with the reduced compensation rate 'negotiated' between your insurance carrier and the physician's practice.
Pathologists and lab work in general make money on volume of results, not quality. Mere ethics are supposed to maintain quality.
Now, free medical care for everyone is better how?
That is an agreeable more correct statement. However, the subject of the post was "EULA not binding".
Case law is extremely jurisdictionally whimsical (for lack of a better term), which of course adds to the confusion.
Hmm, there is case law contradicting your statement.
Mod P and GP up!!!
Got proof?
It's all about the pedigree, ya know...
I have a source that says it is only about 6000 thousand years old...
I guess they will pull it just long enough for a period of rewording and concept massaging.
But there is a BIG line between feeling and acting. ---- Felony mischief? WTH? A misdemeanor doesn't cut it?
BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car. More Supreme Court cases then I can list here have affirmed this multiple times.
BAD ADVICE!
That simple action if very jurisdictionally (is that even a real word?) dependent.
I would suggest that the "meiers of the world" are already protected by existing laws.
Why do we need a federal duplication/escalation of existing state laws?
Another clue to the growing problem of fakes is the supply of hyper-aged whiskey _increasing_. Just a layman's observation.
I don't think we'll ever be out of the woods. I believe they will pursue that course no matter what happens in the courts. From their perspective cost shifting to your benefit is a bad thing how?
The fear campaign can be just as effective by using the courts the _correct_ way. However, you are quite correct the profitable part of their scheme will be over.
Will the real MySQL please stand up.
Your world, RIAA shill.
In my mind it was a tactic meant to pay out rope without actively prejudicing one party over another in the instant matter.
I guess the abuse of the court system by the RIAA will remain a matter of opinion alone.
I'm done with the thread.
Again, your focus is way to narrow. Exactly what I was trying to highlight.
I'll slow this down for more clarity.
In the context of the larger picture, the judge, I believe, was trying to use a court rule in such a way as to serve the greater public interest by exposing their (RIAA) cross jurisdiction abusive machinations.
Kind of like how an appeals court will dodge a constitutional issue in a New York minute in favor of some minuscule meaningless procedural misstep, or obscure legal theory derived from an 1850 cow case.
So, yes you are correct that my question makes no sense when you willfully choose to ignore the issue in any larger context.
Now for the car analogy. To me it is the difference between being the mosquito watching the windshield approach and the hapless driver dreading the impending windshield cleaning.
The majority of the practice of law is concerned with such minutia, most often for good reason. However, the lay person likes to see 'lay' justice served and not be bogged down in red clay. Watching the RIAA march up and down the map making a mockery of federal courts has not been a fun thing to watch and it is past time that it be brought to an end.
Actually, I did RTFM, and another one on the Reuters website before the UK article was posted here. The jist of both is concentration on new lines (using existing right of ways) with _some_ augmentation of existing infrastructure.
I still believe it would be more productive and cheaper to work with existing infrastructure instead of rip and replace.
If you want something visionary, how about supporting large scale consumer adoption of small regional airports and new, small advanced planes that take far fewer people but connect small airports all over with mass transit in each city? It's like the dream of the flying car but with practicality behind it and yields a lot more flexibility.
I think you missed the part where nobody (politicians) is interested in the actual stated goal. ;)
It is a great thought experiment though, what if the world were ran and built by engineers...
High speed rail sounds really good.
The problem is that the U.S. is huge. There aren't too many routes that make high speed rail profitable.
I suppose a number of lines going to Vegas and Florida could come close to breaking even.
Let me be the first to name this a Train To Nowhere.
We already have Amtrak. Remove grade crossings and update the signaling and anti-tampering systems and the locomotives can go 'high speed' on existing infrastructure.
Finally, it is quite hard to have 'high speed' rail when it has to stop in every congressional district multiple times.
The lawyer types are translating for us ignorant techies. The lawyer types are focusing on the procedural aspect as to why the broadcasting in real time is a Bad Thing.
But as an ignorant techie, what I want to know is why has the RIAA been allowed to bitch slap federal courts across the country with impunity? It would seem to me that the judge in this case is actually trying to widely disseminate the tactics of the RIAA for other jurists to consider. A legal countermeasure to the bastardization of the current system, basically.
Yet, the issue is bogged down by arguing over procedural bickering. You'd think this whole thing was being written in lisp, or pascal.
Federal criminal copyright statutes are right around the corner for casual filesharers.
Potheads move over, there is another class of evil felons threatening to overthrow America in this decade's War On $VOTEGARNERINGTOPIC.
Now the only avenue of ownership for their digital content is unsanctioned file sharing.
All future unsanctioned copies will bear the same (at least) 8 watermarks losing TOS abusers in a sea of anonymity.
Best viral marketing move for an RPG ever.
----
And just when you thought they 'got it'...
"Syfy" was military slang for a social disease in my day. Pronounced with a short i and long e. I guess nobody told them that. :\
The implication is that Google is destroying said books after scanning. The problem is that no one nowhere has actually said this.
AFAICT there is nothing stopping another entity from creating their own copyrightable anthology of orphaned works. Simplistic solution, yet not impossible to achieve in the real world.