Intentional torts are very specific causes of action. We can forget the ones dealing with people (e.g. assault). Fraud and slander won't work either. So that leaves property based torts, of which trespass to chattel is the only realistic route to take. The problem is that the rootkit did not in and of itself harm the computer, it only made it possible to harm the computer by creating a vulnerability. I think this reasoning probably also applies to design defect and failure-to-warn torts.
As much as I think this is a prime example of corporate sorriness (as my Trademark and Business Torts professor would say), I doubt that a prima facia case can be made for an intentional tort. Then again IANAL, IAJASEGTLS.
Two words reckless homicide: "consciously ignoring a substantial and unjustified risk that results in death". Lee Iacocca was aware of the fact that the design of the fuel tank and the area protecting the fuel tank was flawed. The Pinto failed every safety test where the design was left unmodified. Ford Motor Company then executed a cost-benefit analysis that determined that it was cheaper to let the design defect go then to spend the money to fix the problem. Since Mr. Iacocca was in charge of the Pinto project he would have had to have authorized the study and would have been made aware of its findings. Mr. Iacocca decided that the cost and delay in modifying the gas tank conflicted with his design goals.
The only reason that Ford was not held criminally liable for the actions of its agent, executed in the course of his employment is the the (I believe) NTSB said you only had to test to a patently unrealistic 5 mph to meet government rear-end crash safety requirements. The NTSB had proposed increasing that to 15 mph but under intense industry lobbying, abandoned that plan. Since Ford met the federal standard, that pre-empted any state cause of action for criminal liablity. Make no mistake, Ford and Lee Iacocca are morally blameworthy for the deaths caused by their design decisions, it is merely the corruption of money politics that prevents them from being held liable.
generally true, but in comparative negligence jurisdictions if you jump on your breaks for no reason the court may determine that your act was unreasonable (a fact dependant finding) and conclude that you carry some percentage of the blame. In some cases if this exceeds 50%, then not only may you be barred from recovery, you may find yourself on the receiving end of a counter-claim. IANALHIAASEGTLS.
Ummm... and they would care about a fine why? It isn't their money that they are paying with, it is the taxpayers money. Fine them out the wazoo, they'll just lobby to get an extra quarter percent tax increase next year. You can forget about getting anyone fired too, between tenure and the unions everyone (except the students) is sitting pretty. What we have here is a bad case of externalities, the school can shift all costs to the taxpayers and carries no burden for bad management or fiscal irresponsibility.
Moral obligations != legal obligations. There is no good faith requirement in contracts. If you make a bad bargin, you are stuck with it. If it is a contract of adhesion and to enforce the contract would be considered unconscionable then the court, may, reform the contract. However, if the lawyers for the music biz are reduced to arguing unconscionability, then they have pretty much lost.
Technically it is Libel, not slander. iirc both are intentional torts with truth being an absolute defense. The difference (again iirc) is that under slander you have to show actual damage while under libel damage is per se (because libel is spread farther and faster). Also, public figures, such as politicians, get less protection (NY Times v. Sullivan (?)). Anyway you know know about as much about libel and slander as the average 1L.
If you want to know who makes the Jester dance, don't ask the king, ask the king-maker. In even the most transparent, honest, and inclusive government it is the un-elected career bureaucrats who control what the President sees and hears. They provide the intel, the analysis, and the poll numbers. As such they wield far more power then the President. They have the ability, through selective filtering to drive the President to make a decision that he may or may not make given unfiltered access to information. Provide a few selective leaks to the media who lap up anything that will help them sell advertising space and *suprise* you have "independent" confirmation by the media.
try sitting in the middle of a highway or on the railroad tracks or on top of a missile silo. Hell try sitting in a class, a movie, or a concert you haven't paid for. NO you can not sit down anywhere you please. I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but there are certain rules that people are generally expected to follow. She violated those rules deliberately so as to get arrested and garner more publicity.
It is a business decision. The purpose of news (whether print, audio, or video) is to fill in the empty space between advertisements. The goal of the media is to slant their stories in order to align them as closely as possible to the slant of the majority of the public in order to ensure the maximum potential customer base. If they are successful in maximizing the number of eys on their information product they can in turn raise their advertising rates which then raises their profit level.
> Tired people make more mistakes, and fixing those costs money.
The bug fix money comes from a different pot then the initial development money and worse, it may even be a different group of engineers. If this is the case, it means that the development manager makes his/her bonus numbers by keeping the development costs down which is achieved through understaffing and the support team is screwed. On top of that it is suprising how many customers will fork over new money for new features AND to fix old bugs.
Ummmm... please tell me you know about Dien Bien Phu. Did they teach you about the million Algerians the French killed? let me guess, they only teach how de Gaulle "liberated" Paris. Do they teach how it is bad for the US to act like a colonial super-power but okay for France to try to reimpose its colonial will on Western Africa? Make no mistake, I believe that this war was ill conceieved and ill executed. It is based on half-truths and lies. Quite possibly all of the intel coming to the US from Chalabi originated in Tehran. However, that does not excuse the French who opposed this war. They did so not because they did not belive in the WMDs, but simply because they simply could. The French wanted to flex a little political muscle at the US administrations expense, showing how they could "cow" the mighty US. This is the betrayal which even angers me and I have no fondness for this administration and have never met a french person that I did not like. France chose political posturing and the profits of oil-for-food over friendship. I guess France wanted to show the world that it was the big kid on the block that would run Europe. France could have abstained from the UN vote, France could have provided some workable alternative, instead France publicly declared that no resolution authorizing use of force would ever get a yes vote. France tied the hands of the administraton, there was no way the Bush administation could be seen as allowing a foreign country to dictate our foreign policy. When that happend the adminstration had no choice but to go it alone. Unfortunately it has back-fired on all sides. The US through dreadfully poor planning is stuck. The administration won't even bother consulting with the EU or the UN next time it decides to play soldier. The UN, Europe, and France have been shown to be quite powerless to stop the geo-religious-political ambitions of the current administration. The worst fears of the US have been proven true, we have no friends, we only have other countries who feed, like parasites, on us and then sunder the relationship when it no longer proves convenient. All of the sacrifice, all of the burden we have carried and what do we have to show for it? Nothing. So now we go it alone. It will be interesting to see what happens when (not if) China decides to grab Taiwan. No AC here, I am more then happy to discuss geo-politics and foreign relations.
I really can't see the difference between a free public hotspot and a unsecured private network - it's not really possible to tell the difference between the 2 from a technological perspective.
The question is: is it reasonable to assume you are connecting to a free public hot spot? In a location near a facility known to provide no-cost-to-user wireless connectivity, then it is possible that you could reasonably mistake the no-cost public hotspot for the unsecured private hotspot, assuming that you could show that the names given to the wireless access points were either similar or did not provide enough information to allow you to differentiate between the two. It is probably better to go to a known free hotspot, pay for your own service, or do without.
The idea will not work. Corporations are not people, they are vampires. You cannot really kill them becasue they are not really alive. When you suspend the corporations activities, the stock will plummet as investors get out. When the price gets low enough, the board will use their own personal funds to buy up enough of the discounted stock to get control of the corporation at which point they will sell the assets of the corporation to the highest bidder or sell them at a discount to the new corporation they have formed which will in turn rename itself to the old corporations name. Both the equity holders (shareholders) and the debt holders (banks and other creditors) are SOL unless they are secured debt holders. The board either makes out like bandits, because after they control all of the stock and sell all of the assets as long as they comply with the rules for declaring dividends, they decalre a one-time bagillion dollar dividend to themselves or the keep on doing what they have been doing under either a new name or the same name. It is difficult to properly punish a non-entity.
what?!?! Actully paying the artists for their labor!?!? The hippies will call you a facist because music should be free for the taking and the Randians will call you a communist because the money properly belongs to the corporate record labels that sponsor the artists in order to compensate them for taking a risk in sponsoring the artist to begin with. Both sides look at artists as something to be used and discarded.
Let me guess, just like 9-11 this was the work of the evil Zionists and the CIA?
And when I consider the number of my brothers and sisters that have died because of British and U.S. actions, it really is impossible for me to sympathise.
You think it was bad before? These "considerate" homicidal maniacs have just driven the British people deper into the arms of the U.S. neoconservitive movement. How many Brits will protest when British intelligence/security services start raiding mosques and giving the Imans a one-way ticket to gitmo? How hard do you think the police will work when some gang of skinheads burns down a apartment building full of Arab/Persian immigrants? These animals have just made life harder for you and your "brothers and sisters" and you call them "considerate".
ummm how about respiration, circulation, and brain function? If you are older then 10 and don't understand the difference between pre-mortum body and a post-mortum body then my only suggestion is to learn about the above. Particularly neuroscience.
Then again, why bother educating yourself when you can remain ignorant and just play the race card when someone calls you on it.
Except of course there is no freedom to be a Nazi; no freedom to deny the holocaust. So there is no true freedom of expression or association. Freedom of expression and association can not be applied solely to things you like or agree with. In fact, your most strident support of freedom must be for the things you most despise.
Regardless, in 20 years when europe is under Sharia law, your lack of freedom will become more apparent.
The problem is that some people equate smoking pot and copying CDs with freedom. They are not freedoms. Freedoms are not about what you can do, they are about what the government cannot do. They are checks on the inherent nature of governments to become less open, less tolerant, and more susceptible to outside influences which run counter to the general good of the citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I think this is a prime example of corporate sorriness (as my Trademark and Business Torts professor would say), I doubt that a prima facia case can be made for an intentional tort. Then again IANAL, IAJASEGTLS.
The only reason that Ford was not held criminally liable for the actions of its agent, executed in the course of his employment is the the (I believe) NTSB said you only had to test to a patently unrealistic 5 mph to meet government rear-end crash safety requirements. The NTSB had proposed increasing that to 15 mph but under intense industry lobbying, abandoned that plan. Since Ford met the federal standard, that pre-empted any state cause of action for criminal liablity. Make no mistake, Ford and Lee Iacocca are morally blameworthy for the deaths caused by their design decisions, it is merely the corruption of money politics that prevents them from being held liable.
generally true, but in comparative negligence jurisdictions if you jump on your breaks for no reason the court may determine that your act was unreasonable (a fact dependant finding) and conclude that you carry some percentage of the blame. In some cases if this exceeds 50%, then not only may you be barred from recovery, you may find yourself on the receiving end of a counter-claim. IANALHIAASEGTLS.
1. Duty 2. Breach (pronounced unreasonableness) 3. Proximate Causation 4. Damages 5. Profit
Ummm... and they would care about a fine why? It isn't their money that they are paying with, it is the taxpayers money. Fine them out the wazoo, they'll just lobby to get an extra quarter percent tax increase next year. You can forget about getting anyone fired too, between tenure and the unions everyone (except the students) is sitting pretty. What we have here is a bad case of externalities, the school can shift all costs to the taxpayers and carries no burden for bad management or fiscal irresponsibility.
If the watch is made of protein, then the watch becomes the watch-maker.
it certainly does, and stop calling me Shirley
Moral obligations != legal obligations. There is no good faith requirement in contracts. If you make a bad bargin, you are stuck with it. If it is a contract of adhesion and to enforce the contract would be considered unconscionable then the court, may, reform the contract. However, if the lawyers for the music biz are reduced to arguing unconscionability, then they have pretty much lost.
Technically it is Libel, not slander. iirc both are intentional torts with truth being an absolute defense. The difference (again iirc) is that under slander you have to show actual damage while under libel damage is per se (because libel is spread farther and faster). Also, public figures, such as politicians, get less protection (NY Times v. Sullivan (?)). Anyway you know know about as much about libel and slander as the average 1L.
If you want to know who makes the Jester dance, don't ask the king, ask the king-maker. In even the most transparent, honest, and inclusive government it is the un-elected career bureaucrats who control what the President sees and hears. They provide the intel, the analysis, and the poll numbers. As such they wield far more power then the President. They have the ability, through selective filtering to drive the President to make a decision that he may or may not make given unfiltered access to information. Provide a few selective leaks to the media who lap up anything that will help them sell advertising space and *suprise* you have "independent" confirmation by the media.
try sitting in the middle of a highway or on the railroad tracks or on top of a missile silo. Hell try sitting in a class, a movie, or a concert you haven't paid for. NO you can not sit down anywhere you please. I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but there are certain rules that people are generally expected to follow. She violated those rules deliberately so as to get arrested and garner more publicity.
except the governments first reaction is to protect itself.
It is a business decision. The purpose of news (whether print, audio, or video) is to fill in the empty space between advertisements. The goal of the media is to slant their stories in order to align them as closely as possible to the slant of the majority of the public in order to ensure the maximum potential customer base. If they are successful in maximizing the number of eys on their information product they can in turn raise their advertising rates which then raises their profit level.
Tell the ACLU that the bible requires autopilot, they'll fight it tooth and nail...
The bug fix money comes from a different pot then the initial development money and worse, it may even be a different group of engineers. If this is the case, it means that the development manager makes his/her bonus numbers by keeping the development costs down which is achieved through understaffing and the support team is screwed. On top of that it is suprising how many customers will fork over new money for new features AND to fix old bugs.
Ummmm... please tell me you know about Dien Bien Phu. Did they teach you about the million Algerians the French killed? let me guess, they only teach how de Gaulle "liberated" Paris. Do they teach how it is bad for the US to act like a colonial super-power but okay for France to try to reimpose its colonial will on Western Africa? Make no mistake, I believe that this war was ill conceieved and ill executed. It is based on half-truths and lies. Quite possibly all of the intel coming to the US from Chalabi originated in Tehran. However, that does not excuse the French who opposed this war. They did so not because they did not belive in the WMDs, but simply because they simply could. The French wanted to flex a little political muscle at the US administrations expense, showing how they could "cow" the mighty US. This is the betrayal which even angers me and I have no fondness for this administration and have never met a french person that I did not like. France chose political posturing and the profits of oil-for-food over friendship. I guess France wanted to show the world that it was the big kid on the block that would run Europe. France could have abstained from the UN vote, France could have provided some workable alternative, instead France publicly declared that no resolution authorizing use of force would ever get a yes vote. France tied the hands of the administraton, there was no way the Bush administation could be seen as allowing a foreign country to dictate our foreign policy. When that happend the adminstration had no choice but to go it alone. Unfortunately it has back-fired on all sides. The US through dreadfully poor planning is stuck. The administration won't even bother consulting with the EU or the UN next time it decides to play soldier. The UN, Europe, and France have been shown to be quite powerless to stop the geo-religious-political ambitions of the current administration. The worst fears of the US have been proven true, we have no friends, we only have other countries who feed, like parasites, on us and then sunder the relationship when it no longer proves convenient. All of the sacrifice, all of the burden we have carried and what do we have to show for it? Nothing. So now we go it alone. It will be interesting to see what happens when (not if) China decides to grab Taiwan. No AC here, I am more then happy to discuss geo-politics and foreign relations.
The idea will not work. Corporations are not people, they are vampires. You cannot really kill them becasue they are not really alive. When you suspend the corporations activities, the stock will plummet as investors get out. When the price gets low enough, the board will use their own personal funds to buy up enough of the discounted stock to get control of the corporation at which point they will sell the assets of the corporation to the highest bidder or sell them at a discount to the new corporation they have formed which will in turn rename itself to the old corporations name. Both the equity holders (shareholders) and the debt holders (banks and other creditors) are SOL unless they are secured debt holders. The board either makes out like bandits, because after they control all of the stock and sell all of the assets as long as they comply with the rules for declaring dividends, they decalre a one-time bagillion dollar dividend to themselves or the keep on doing what they have been doing under either a new name or the same name. It is difficult to properly punish a non-entity.
Don't worry, you'll probably get away with crucifixion.
Then again, why bother educating yourself when you can remain ignorant and just play the race card when someone calls you on it.
Regardless, in 20 years when europe is under Sharia law, your lack of freedom will become more apparent.
The problem is that some people equate smoking pot and copying CDs with freedom. They are not freedoms. Freedoms are not about what you can do, they are about what the government cannot do. They are checks on the inherent nature of governments to become less open, less tolerant, and more susceptible to outside influences which run counter to the general good of the citizens.
So which freedoms do I lack?
Rebuttals, like denials, are the first sign of guilt.