A bottomfeeder. It survives by sucking up the wastes that acrete on the floor of its chosen body of water.
I once caught a 350 pound lawyer.
33. The War Of The Simpsons First aired: 5/2/1991 Writer: John Swartzwelder Director: Matt Kirkland Guest star: Global rating: 7.90
When Homer humiliates Marge at a party they've thrown for their friends and neighbors, the only thing that can save their marriage is a weekend retreat for married couples run by Reverend Lovejoy up at Catfish Lake. Marge is determined to fix their marriage, but Homer is more determined to catch General Sherman, the freakishly large catfish that lives in the lake. Marge tells Homer that if he really loves her, he won't spend any time fishing, but while taking a walk along the lake one morning, Homer finds himself unable to resist the chance to catch General Sherman. When Marge finds him wrestling the gigantic fish into a boat, she scolds him for lying to her. Homer proves his love for Marge the only way he can: He lets General Sherman go.
Thank you for your concern with my liability exposure.
If you are right about anything you wrote, it is that lawyers do have concerns (ethical and practical) about giving advice that might be misconstrued and cause harm.
In my posts above, and in all my posts to slashdot, I refrain from offering legal advice. I do post legal information, as I am free to do.
I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Reading a slashdot post does not constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship. I am probably not you lawyer if either a) we aren't both in Indiana and b) you haven't paid a hefty retainer at my standard $235/hr or some other agreed upon rate. I am not currently seeking new clients and this post is not an ad for my services. Additionally, I keep myself judgment-proof and do not carry malpractice insurance. If you need a lawyer in Indiana I might be able to provide a referral. If elsewhere, contact the National Bar Association or maybe EFF.
You'll be missed. Personally, I couldn't find the place. Drove up and down 38th st around Guion rd. looking for it. Not that I'm a useful kind of customer - no disposable income.
They tried that with the U2, but the noise was terrible, too much rattle and hum. [IAAL, but my comments to slashdot are pro bono] TFA describes one of the most important advances in unmanned arial vehicles since amelia earhart.
The Utah Progressive Network and Andrew McCullough, who joined today's lawsuit, have Web sites that are hosted on shared Internet addresses with unrelated sites, some of which contain material likely harmful to minors. They fear that because of the new law, their sites and their constitutionally protected speech will be blocked.
"To comply with the law, Internet service providers are authorized to block access to certain content, and this would almost unavoidably lead to the blocking, and thus the censorship, of innocent websites," said co-counsel John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "Also troubling is the fact that the publishers of these sites may never realize they're being blocked."
The case, The King's English v. Shurtleff, challenges Utah Code 67-5-19, 76-10-1205 through 1206, and 76-10-1230 through 1233.
Clients in the lawsuit are The King's English, Inc.; Sam Weller's Zion Bookstore; Nathan Florence; W. Andrew McCullough; Computer Solutions International, Inc.; Mountain Wireless Utah, LLC; the Sexual Health Network, Inc.; Utah Progressive Network Education Fund, Inc.; the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah; the Association of American Publishers; the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund; the Freedom to Read Foundation; and the Publishers Marketing Association.
utah is currently being sued over its current "ban the internet - think of the kiddies" statute. michigan already lost such a case, cyberspace v engler. aclu.org under cyberliberties. usually, but not always, these sorts of statutes are struck down as violations of interstate commerce rights. ala v pataki. if someone tries to enforce such a statute against you, you can sue them, 42 usc 1983, and ask the fbi to put them in jail, 17 usc 241. won't happen, but you can ask.
these sorts of bills are feelgood legislation; those passing them (in violation of their oath of office) usually understand they are unenforcable. (i am a lawyer, just not a very good one.)
It's just a local ordinance. If you can afford a new heart, you can afford a plane ticket to a free country. Are there any? depends on your definition of freedom, of course. bleeding-heart, godless socialists like myself prefer to consult this organization, or this one, and even this one... the cold, selfish libertarian capitalists prefer this one, i imagine.
Thanks for your response. I'm glad you got good karma for it. If it wasn't clear from the context, I'm talking about the freedom to install robot hearts, and generally to develop life extending new technologies so that they will be well-tested and cheap by the time I (or you) need them.
Of course a country might be free for medical research and not free in other ways that are important to both of us; perhaps I spoke too loosely. I didn't find anything specific to medical innovation at the sites you listed, and I'm not sure where to research this further. Kudos also for listing the hungersite.org in your sig; that's an example of one small positive step a person can take.
As a cold selfish libertarian capitalist, there are reasons I have links to aclu and amnesty international on my blog. I've been tortured in jail, and I work with the aclu on issues where my freedom is at stake. E.g the hearings next week on FEC regulation of online speech.
Cordially, arbitrary aardvark.
It's just a local ordinance. If you can afford a new heart, you can afford a plane ticket to a free country. Are there any?
I've been wondering this generally in relation to, for example, sale of organs (illegal in US), sale of blood (illegal in US), medical marijuana (illegal in US), recreational cloning (illegal in US), certain forms of political speech (illegal in US.)
Outsourcing would seem to be the way to go.
I probably have aspergers. Is there some sort of online diagnostic? Maybe I'm just a geek. The shrink's office was supposed to have called back by now to set up the testing - I will be charged $160, which is ok, but if the same test is online I'd like to know about it.
The proposal is like most of the US state anti-spam acts I've analysed (if the posted info was accurate.)
It doesn't narrowly target spam, but outlaws a wide swath of legitimate email.
Misleading headers: Look at the last 10 emails you sent. Could some enemy construe any of them as "misleading"?
Look at the way the proposal targets those whose products are promoted by spam, even if they had nothing to do with sending or encouraging the spam.
Say you don't like bill gates. Send spam advertizing his product, then report him.
The proposal, if enacted in the US, would violate the first amendment and due process. I don't know enough about Canadian common law, charter, etc, to be able to comment. But it's a bad proposal in its current form, or it's been ineptly described in the posted articles. Baby with the bathwater, cure worse than the disease.
Embassy OF BELGIUM 3330 GARFIELD ST., NW, 20008 WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Honorary Consulate OF BELGIUM 11330 N.W. 36TH TE., 33178 MIAMI, FLORIDA
Step 1: make a friend at a consulate. Step 2: have the consulate write to the attorney general of the state of the spammer. this gets -way- more response than j random person. keep a paper trail. send stuff thru the mail, on your most official looking letterhead; don't try to do this by email - your email will be considered spam. Step 3: contact spammer, agree to stop efforts for a reasonable settlement... profit.
when most spam is coming from abroad, this law helps how? find the broad, tell her to stop.
Countries which don't have (effective) laws against spam, might also not have (effective) laws against hunting down spammers and making them into spam. We could organize safaris.
Perhaps canada could pass a law to make it illegal to buy anything from a spammer. That might slightly reduce the demand.
Headline reads, Software Piracy Will Get Worse. But if you read the article, it actually says software piracy will double its market share in five years, thus: Software Piracy Will Get Better would be more accurate.
Since the software has no way of knowing what state it's being installed in, this is like if your town council tried to regulate, or ban, the internet. Not true. It is possible for software to determine it's own locality if it is connected to the internet, which is how most spyware gets installed in the first place. Although it is not 100% accurate, it is close enough that they could say they made every effort. So you are saying it would be easy for software companies to rewrite the software so it does a check to see if the machine is in washington before installing? If that is true, and it may or may not be, it would limit the burden on interstate commerce somewhat.
A person charged under this bill could sue the county/city where he was charged, for violating his civil rights to commerce. So the bill may just be a bluff. I don't know where you got that but that is just plain wrong. The bill does not contain any language excluding or preferring any State's software over another. This bill does not care where the software came from, but it does apply to computers in this state. In general, you cannot sue one locality for the laws in another locality, you must sue the locality you are claiming has done you harm. It is called 'jurisdiction'.
You are talking about something I didn't say. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
For them to even come close, they would have to sue the state of Washington itself and claim the burden this places on their business is greater than the burden it places on a company in this state. BTW, that is highly unlikely to happen.
Well, you can't sue Washington state in federal court, because of the 11th amendment, and Washington isn't a "person" who can be sued under 42 usc 1983, the civil rights act i was referring to, but a town or county would be. Let's call it Redmondville, and the software realityplayer. Realityplayer comes out of a company in New Hampster, and is mainly directed at people in Old Jersey, since it is a utility for tracking Old Jersey high school lacrosse games, but there could be some users in Redmondville. The company now either has to rewrite the software to screen out Washington users, or to comply with the statute. Meanwhile, Redmondvile has passed an ordinance saying you can't post pictures of puppies on the internet, unless they are over 18 and have proof of consent on file at city hall. Both the statute and the ordinance unduly burden commerce in New Hampster and Old Jersey, and a person threatened with prosecution could file suit for damages to their right to commerce. ALA v Pataki, Cyberspace v. Engler, ACLU v Johnson, and so forth, establish that states and cities don't have jurisdiction to regulate the internet. There are probably some cases going the other way.
Since the software has no way of knowing what state it's being installed in, this is like if your town council tried to regulate, or ban, the internet.
Earlier this week the Supreme Court held that regulations interfering with out of state wine sales violated the constitution's dormant commerce clause. There have been half a dozen cases, e.g. ALA v Pataki, that say states can't regulate online smut, on commerce grounds. A person charged under this bill could sue the county/city where he was charged, for violating his civil rights to commerce. So the bill may just be a bluff. Has anybody who is literate as to both spyware and legislation evaluated this to see if it hits the target? Does it ban spyware, and just spyware, or are there legitimate apps that would into trouble with this?
Their reasoning is that the states' 'authority to regulate the sale of alcohol within their borders' under the 21st Amendment does not supersede 'the Constitution's ban on state discrimination against interstate commerce
That is plain wrong Parent post is modded +5, insightfully wrong. The dormant commerce clause is a tricky constitutional doctrine. The 5-4 split today was about whether the 21st Amendment contains an exception to the dormant commerce clause. The text is ambiguous, and this court is hestitant about using evidence of understanding at the time it was passed. It could have gone either way, more discussion at my blog. If the 21st does not contain an exception to the doctrine, then congress could pass law allowing the states to regulate in this area. The 4 dissenters argued that congress has done so, although those bills aren't very clearly written on this point. Dormant commerce clause issues do have a lot to do with the internet - it's why your state anti-spam law is unconstitutional, and why 6 cases have said the states can't regulate online indecency.
Back when I was the world's lowest-paid teamster, I worked at a coke warehouse. Over time, the stuff eats right through a concrete floor. I think it was the diet.
Coke is also famously useful for cleaning your car battery terminals, or washing off that "i already voted" ink on your finger.
Read some john varley. The handlike feet are called peds, and are a common body mod for the billions of spacers living out around saturn. http://www.varley.net/
And there is no constitutional or guaranteed right to remain anonymous.
A minor quibble with the grandparent post: There is a constitutional right to remain anonymous, but it only applies to actions by government, so it doesn't fit here. Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, http://majors.blogspot.com./
There is a right to privacy, balanced by first amendment public right to know, so that such cases rarely win. Say a newspaper, without consent, publishes the address of a juvenile rape victim, the rapist sees it and goes for a 2nd helping, the newspaper might be liable. I wouldn't call that guaranteed, tho. So the quote isn't wrong, i'm just clarifying a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
A bottomfeeder. It survives by sucking up the wastes that acrete on the floor of its chosen body of water.
I once caught a 350 pound lawyer.
33. The War Of The Simpsons
First aired: 5/2/1991
Writer: John Swartzwelder
Director: Matt Kirkland
Guest star:
Global rating: 7.90
When Homer humiliates Marge at a party they've thrown for their friends and neighbors, the only thing that can save their marriage is a weekend retreat for married couples run by Reverend Lovejoy up at Catfish Lake. Marge is determined to fix their marriage, but Homer is more determined to catch General Sherman, the freakishly large catfish that lives in the lake. Marge tells Homer that if he really loves her, he won't spend any time fishing, but while taking a walk along the lake one morning, Homer finds himself unable to resist the chance to catch General Sherman. When Marge finds him wrestling the gigantic fish into a boat, she scolds him for lying to her. Homer proves his love for Marge the only way he can: He lets General Sherman go.
Thank you for your concern with my liability exposure.
If you are right about anything you wrote, it is that lawyers do have concerns (ethical and practical) about giving advice that might be misconstrued and cause harm.
In my posts above, and in all my posts to slashdot, I refrain from offering legal advice. I do post legal information, as I am free to do.
I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. Reading a slashdot post does not constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship. I am probably not you lawyer if either a) we aren't both in Indiana
and b) you haven't paid a hefty retainer at my standard $235/hr or some other agreed upon rate.
I am not currently seeking new clients and this post is not an ad for my services.
Additionally, I keep myself judgment-proof and do not carry malpractice insurance. If you need a lawyer in Indiana I might be able to provide a referral. If elsewhere, contact the National Bar Association or maybe EFF.
You'll be missed. Personally, I couldn't find the place. Drove up and down 38th st around Guion rd. looking for it. Not that I'm a useful kind of customer - no disposable income.
They tried that with the U2, but the noise was terrible, too much rattle and hum.
[IAAL, but my comments to slashdot are pro bono]
TFA describes one of the most important advances in unmanned arial vehicles since amelia earhart.
more info on utah lawsuit - this is not about the bill this slashdot article is about - but it raises some of the same issues.
c =252
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=18455&
The Utah Progressive Network and Andrew McCullough, who joined today's lawsuit, have Web sites that are hosted on shared Internet addresses with unrelated sites, some of which contain material likely harmful to minors. They fear that because of the new law, their sites and their constitutionally protected speech will be blocked.
"To comply with the law, Internet service providers are authorized to block access to certain content, and this would almost unavoidably lead to the blocking, and thus the censorship, of innocent websites," said co-counsel John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "Also troubling is the fact that the publishers of these sites may never realize they're being blocked."
The case, The King's English v. Shurtleff, challenges Utah Code 67-5-19, 76-10-1205 through 1206, and 76-10-1230 through 1233.
Clients in the lawsuit are The King's English, Inc.; Sam Weller's Zion Bookstore; Nathan Florence; W. Andrew McCullough; Computer Solutions International, Inc.; Mountain Wireless Utah, LLC; the Sexual Health Network, Inc.; Utah Progressive Network Education Fund, Inc.; the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah; the Association of American Publishers; the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund; the Freedom to Read Foundation; and the Publishers Marketing Association.
Bounty hunters, organ harvesting.
utah is currently being sued over its current "ban the internet - think of the kiddies" statute.
michigan already lost such a case, cyberspace v engler. aclu.org under cyberliberties.
usually, but not always, these sorts of statutes are struck down as violations of interstate commerce rights. ala v pataki. if someone tries to enforce such a statute against you, you can sue them, 42 usc 1983, and ask the fbi to put them in jail, 17 usc 241. won't happen, but you can ask.
these sorts of bills are feelgood legislation; those passing them (in violation of their oath of office) usually understand they are unenforcable.
(i am a lawyer, just not a very good one.)
It's just a local ordinance. If you can afford a new heart, you can afford a plane ticket to a free country. Are there any?
depends on your definition of freedom, of course. bleeding-heart, godless socialists like myself prefer to consult this organization, or this one, and even this one...
the cold, selfish libertarian capitalists prefer this one, i imagine.
Thanks for your response. I'm glad you got good karma for it. If it wasn't clear from the context, I'm talking about the freedom to install robot hearts, and generally to develop life extending new technologies so that they will be well-tested and cheap by the time I (or you) need them.
Of course a country might be free for medical research and not free in other ways that are important to both of us; perhaps I spoke too loosely. I didn't find anything specific to medical innovation at the sites you listed, and I'm not sure where to research this further.
Kudos also for listing the hungersite.org in your sig; that's an example of one small positive step a person can take.
As a cold selfish libertarian capitalist, there are reasons I have links to aclu and amnesty international on my blog. I've been tortured in jail, and I work with the aclu on issues where my freedom is at stake. E.g the hearings next week on FEC regulation of online speech.
Cordially, arbitrary aardvark.
It's just a local ordinance. If you can afford a new heart, you can afford a plane ticket to a free country. Are there any?
I've been wondering this generally in relation to, for example, sale of organs (illegal in US), sale of blood (illegal in US), medical marijuana (illegal in US), recreational cloning (illegal in US), certain forms of political speech (illegal in US.)
Outsourcing would seem to be the way to go.
(probably redundant)p ?AuNum=2 l doCollection
Waldo
A telefactoring device; also known as the Waldo F. Jones Synchronous Reduplicating Pantograph.
http://technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=23
http://technovelgy.com/ct/AuthorTotalAlphaList.as
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~main/heinlein.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~main/heinlein.html#Wa
http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/arbi/290818
Quark is the proprietor of Quark's. RTFA?
With Quark out of the way, his brother Rom can take over.
http://www.dmwright.com/html/ferengi.htm
rules of acquisition
eric s raymond
(who i respect tremendously and all)
I probably have aspergers. Is there some sort of online diagnostic? Maybe I'm just a geek. The shrink's office was supposed to have called back by now to set up the testing - I will be charged $160,
which is ok, but if the same test is online I'd like to know about it.
The proposal is like most of the US state anti-spam acts I've analysed (if the posted info was accurate.)
It doesn't narrowly target spam, but outlaws a wide swath of legitimate email.
Misleading headers: Look at the last 10 emails you sent. Could some enemy construe any of them as "misleading"?
Look at the way the proposal targets those whose products are promoted by spam, even if they had nothing to do with sending or encouraging the spam.
Say you don't like bill gates. Send spam advertizing his product, then report him.
The proposal, if enacted in the US, would violate the first amendment and due process.
I don't know enough about Canadian common law, charter, etc, to be able to comment.
But it's a bad proposal in its current form, or it's been ineptly described in the posted articles.
Baby with the bathwater, cure worse than the disease.
Embassy OF BELGIUM
... profit.
3330 GARFIELD ST., NW, 20008
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Honorary Consulate OF BELGIUM
11330 N.W. 36TH TE., 33178
MIAMI, FLORIDA
Step 1: make a friend at a consulate.
Step 2: have the consulate write to the attorney general of the state of the spammer. this gets
-way- more response than j random person.
keep a paper trail. send stuff thru the mail, on your most official looking letterhead; don't try to do this by email - your email will be considered spam.
Step 3: contact spammer, agree to stop efforts for a reasonable settlement
when most spam is coming from abroad, this law helps how? find the broad, tell her to stop.
Countries which don't have (effective) laws against spam, might also not have (effective) laws against hunting down spammers and making them into spam.
We could organize safaris.
Perhaps canada could pass a law to make it illegal to buy anything from a spammer. That might slightly reduce the demand.
Headline reads,
Software Piracy Will Get Worse.
But if you read the article, it actually says software piracy will double its market share in five years, thus:
Software Piracy Will Get Better
would be more accurate.
To: Bill Gates
From:Mom
Re: Mother's day.
Bill, I sent you an email but you didn't respond.
From: Bill Gates
To: Mom
Re: Pending litigation
Mom, you used email as an object. I have a patent on that. You'll be hearing from my lawyers.
--
+3 Stupid
Since the software has no way of knowing what state it's being installed in, this is like if your town council tried to regulate, or ban, the internet.
Not true. It is possible for software to determine it's own locality if it is connected to the internet, which is how most spyware gets installed in the first place. Although it is not 100% accurate, it is close enough that they could say they made every effort.
So you are saying it would be easy for software companies to rewrite the software so it does a check to see if the machine is in washington before installing?
If that is true, and it may or may not be, it would limit the burden on interstate commerce somewhat.
A person charged under this bill could sue the county/city where he was charged, for violating his civil rights to commerce. So the bill may just be a bluff.
I don't know where you got that but that is just plain wrong. The bill does not contain any language excluding or preferring any State's software over another. This bill does not care where the software came from, but it does apply to computers in this state. In general, you cannot sue one locality for the laws in another locality, you must sue the locality you are claiming has done you harm. It is called 'jurisdiction'.
You are talking about something I didn't say. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
For them to even come close, they would have to sue the state of Washington itself and claim the burden this places on their business is greater than the burden it places on a company in this state. BTW, that is highly unlikely to happen.
Well, you can't sue Washington state in federal court, because of the 11th amendment, and Washington isn't a "person" who can be sued under 42 usc 1983, the civil rights act i was referring to, but a town or county would be. Let's call it Redmondville, and the software realityplayer.
Realityplayer comes out of a company in New Hampster, and is mainly directed at people in Old Jersey, since it is a utility for tracking Old Jersey high school lacrosse games, but there could be some users in Redmondville.
The company now either has to rewrite the software to screen out Washington users, or to comply with the statute.
Meanwhile, Redmondvile has passed an ordinance saying you can't post pictures of puppies on the internet, unless they are over 18 and have proof of consent on file at city hall.
Both the statute and the ordinance unduly burden commerce in New Hampster and Old Jersey, and a person threatened with prosecution could file suit for damages to their right to commerce.
ALA v Pataki, Cyberspace v. Engler, ACLU v Johnson, and so forth, establish that states and cities don't have jurisdiction to regulate the internet. There are probably some cases going the other way.
Since the software has no way of knowing what state it's being installed in, this is like if your town council tried to regulate, or ban, the internet.
Earlier this week the Supreme Court held that regulations interfering with out of state wine sales violated the constitution's dormant commerce clause. There have been half a dozen cases, e.g. ALA v Pataki, that say states can't regulate online smut, on commerce grounds.
A person charged under this bill could sue the county/city where he was charged, for violating his civil rights to commerce.
So the bill may just be a bluff.
Has anybody who is literate as to both spyware and legislation evaluated this to see if it hits the target? Does it ban spyware, and just spyware, or are there legitimate apps that would into trouble with this?
Their reasoning is that the states' 'authority to regulate the sale of alcohol within their borders' under the 21st Amendment does not supersede 'the Constitution's ban on state discrimination against interstate commerce
That is plain wrong
Parent post is modded +5, insightfully wrong.
The dormant commerce clause is a tricky constitutional doctrine.
The 5-4 split today was about whether the 21st Amendment contains an exception to the dormant commerce clause. The text is ambiguous, and this court is hestitant about using evidence of understanding at the time it was passed. It could have gone either way, more discussion at my blog.
If the 21st does not contain an exception to the doctrine, then congress could pass law allowing the states to regulate in this area.
The 4 dissenters argued that congress has done so,
although those bills aren't very clearly written on this point.
Dormant commerce clause issues do have a lot to do with the internet - it's why your state anti-spam law is unconstitutional, and why 6 cases have said the states can't regulate online indecency.
a bath with hot water first, then some alcohol.
that's my to-do list for monday.
Back when I was the world's lowest-paid teamster, I worked at a coke warehouse. Over time, the stuff eats right through a concrete floor. I think it was the diet.
Coke is also famously useful for cleaning your car battery terminals, or washing off that "i already voted" ink on your finger.
Read some john varley.
The handlike feet are called peds, and are a common body mod for the billions of spacers living out around saturn.
http://www.varley.net/
And there is no constitutional or guaranteed right to remain anonymous.
A minor quibble with the grandparent post:
There is a constitutional right to remain anonymous, but it only applies to actions by government, so it doesn't fit here.
Talley v California, McIntyre v Ohio, http://majors.blogspot.com./
There is a right to privacy, balanced by first amendment public right to know, so that such cases rarely win.
Say a newspaper, without consent, publishes the address of a juvenile rape victim, the rapist sees it and goes for a 2nd helping, the newspaper might be liable. I wouldn't call that guaranteed, tho.
So the quote isn't wrong, i'm just clarifying a bit.