I don't understand what the point of securing a wifi-access point is with regard to protection from police serving a warrant? Lets say that your wireless access point IS password protected with mac address filtering and someone bypassed this to use your router, you think the police are going to actually do their job and investigate or stop at the first thing they see? No, if you had a secure router, you better believe YOU are going to be the one they try and rape with the criminal justice system.
The whole child porn crime thing is getting absurd. As much as I dislike child porn, the laws for POSSESSION need to be relaxed. Right now, it is akin to being a witch in the 1800's, being a nazi in the 1940's, or a communist in the 1960's. Mere accusation alone is enough to destroy your life. As those in charge don't perform their due diligence in assessing the facts until after they take action which by then your life is ruined.
The intent is to stop the exploitation of children. But the result is the way in which child pornography is pursued, the exploitation of these children seem to be a secondary thing when the pursuit of people in possession is the purpose in which LEOS and DA's rally against because of the sensational headlines they carry. Not to mention the notches they get to cut in their belts.
Our child porn laws are getting so absurd that 16 year old girls who text naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends are getting charged with crimes and being labeled as sex offenders for their rest of their life. Grandmothers who take pictures of their infant/toddler children in the bath are getting prison sentences.
All so some DA or police chief/captain/lieutenant can look good and cut a notch on his belt.
There is no justice. It is just another commodity available only to those with the wealth and influence.
"It is essential to understand that the rites of penance require a personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor. It cannot be replaced by a computer application. I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to confess by iPhone."
What he really means is that by controlling how you interact with god they can control you. Because the clergy are of course soooo holy that only they can speak for god.BR> Where exactly in the bible does it call for a penitent to confess to a confessor, I seem to recall Jesus going around saying that you don't need a clergy person to connect you with god...
You must live in California, because that looks to be exactly the case as it stands here with one addition. Police gain protections and immunities both in state law and in federal law.
However what you described is only what is on paper and leaves out the many unwritten laws. Such as that the police, being above the law, get to decide when the law is enforced and may always claim a misinterpretation of the law to justify what would otherwise be criminal acts.
My favorite example of this is the HB police officer who was stalking a coke using stripper and eventually stalked her leaving her work, pulled her over, blew his load on her face and sweater and then left. Despite the DA prosecuting him proving that he had ran her plates through CLETS 30 minutes prior to her leaving her work and his pulling her over, and despite catching him in several perjuring statements in court, the judge and jury some how ruled that because she was a stripper, she was a professional at using her body to manipulate men, and that she had some how manipulated the officer into the circumstances to get out of the traffic incident.
Of course, then there is the case in San Diego where they mobilized the swat team to apprehend a teenager over a stolen PS3 and when they went to arrest him at his parents house opened up with their automatic weapons through a frosted glass door because the kid "had a weapon" when he was holding the PS3 controller...
Or then there is the guy who is serving time in jail for shooting a cop when the police were serving a no-knock warrant on a criminal who had left the apartment complex 6 months prior, and whose apartment was on the other side of the complex. The police broke into his apartment, never announced who they were and the guy reacted what any rational person would do, he immediately grabbed a handgun and went to his infant babies room and shot at the first armed attacker that came after him.
Or how about the mayor who uses a separate last name from his wife who received a random shipment of drugs. And despite the FBI, DEA and the state police knowing that it was just a blind ship and that the criminals often snatch it from the porch before the home owners get the package, the local police, decide to do a dynamic entry on the mayor. Breaking in and killing their two dogs (who were fleeing the cops) and arresting the mayor and his wife for drug trafficking...
Well, I can go on and on, but the facts remain that the police can basically do whatever the hell they want regardless of what some mere paper says their authority is restricted to.
Would it be legal for Ford to design a car that detected if non-ford parts were used and shut the car down (make it non-operable) until the non-allowed parts are removed and allowed parts are put back on?
Voiding the warranty is perfectly fine, denying the use of legally purchased private property via extortion is not.
And who says you are held under any license agreement when you purchase a console anyways?
Last I checked, I didn't sign any contract when I forked over my cash for my Xbox 360. So where and when exactly did I enter into a legally binding contractual agreement under which licensing restrictions I must abide by?
On another note, I find great humor in the fact that Microsoft allows games like Grand Theft Auto, Saw, Deadspace and Assassin's Creed. You know, games that revolve around either dismembering the limbs of your opponents, raping, theft, murder, assassination, or countless other violent crimes that are amongst the most deplored acts of any society, but HEAVEN FORBID someone use their console for what is essentially masturbation and potentially improve their skill at copulating.
Aren't a lot of the bullshit requirements intended to justify H-1B visas?
I thought in order to qualify for H-1B, you had to first advertise in the local area and if you can't find people then you can apply for H-1B's (which you can then change the requirements).
I don't understand your last bit though. You say there is no difference between having known in the past and knowing now. How can you explain that without making no sense at all?
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I am not saying that you can't forget things, I am responding to when you said:
I think the issue is that taking a paper you wrote n-years ago, doesn't prove that you -still- know it, only that you did then.
I.E. that the arbitrary assumption that because someone wrote the paper in the past that they in fact don't know it now is bullshit.
I mean, afterwards, it doesn't prove that you know anything related to your field, after all that was years ago and covers what you knew then and not what you know now.
The distinction between now and then and knowing is, quite frankly, absolute pure bullshit.
I fail to see how public officials acting in a public capacity performing a public action while in public, that are not actively involved in a current criminal investigation have any expectation of privacy when doing public things in a public capacity in the public.
And given that a when a speed trap is set up, it is not a criminal investigation because no crime has occurred yet for there to be a criminal investigation of, and you cannot charge someone with a crime that has not been committed yet, nor can you charge someone with potentially committing a crime, thus disclosing to the public via electronic communication what public officials (police officers) acting in a public capacity (enforcing the law), while in public (outside in plain sight) is not interfering with a criminal investigation because no such criminal investigation exists involving the activity of those officers performing their speed trap.
However, abuse under the color of authority IS A FEDERAL CRIME which is what the police officers arresting such an individual for would be committing.
Also, wouldn't defamation be a civil issue and not criminal? What is their "standing" that they are claiming these disparaging words (being described as a "pig" or "incompetent") are causing damage to their public image? Especially as these disparaging words are not targeted at a specific individual and fall under "freedom of speech" given that they are a public governmental entity?
It is evident that these police officers are petty and vindictive and only taking action out of malice in retaliation for perceived disparaging words said against their competence. Their actions which, in my opinion, only seem to bring to light their competency (or lack thereof).
California Penal Code 12020
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable
firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a
firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which
contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or
carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst
trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any
short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any
leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol,
any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge
knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon
of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy,
sandclub, sap, or sandbag.
Child Porn is like toxic / nuclear waste. Once you touch it, you are contaminated forever.
There is a grandmother on the east coast who took pictures of her grandchild playing int he tub, a common occurrence. She was charged and convicted of child porn when she took the pictures to be developed. The DA didn't care about the details.
There is a girl in her early 20's who was caught sending naked pictures of her self to her boyfriends cell phone when she was 15 or 16. She was convicted of manufacturing and distributing child pornography and is now labeled as a sexual offender, was forced to drop out of school due to laws against sexual offenders and proximity to children and couldn't go to college (who would accept her?) and generally had her life fucked up because she took naked pictures of herself and shared them.
Child Porn and the zeal to which people combat it is zealotry at it's worst. All one would have to do is send such a picture to someone's phone or email and it doesn't matter how it got there, congratulations, your life is going to get ruined.
The problem with our Child Porn laws and pursuit of justice thereof, is that even Law Abiding citizens who do not deal with Child Porn fear even the accusation of it because whether actually guilty or not, merely having pictures of their children, other innocuous evidence such as porn with college teens in it, or no evidence at all, is enough to destroy their lives. In addition to the fact that jury's are completely ignorant and harsh against alleged perpetrators.
In the USA if the police knock on your door and ask to come in you can tell them to go away - And they have to.
Hahaha...
Oh wait, you are serious about believing that?
Having been a recipient of a corrupt cop lying in order to come up with a reason to arrest me so he could impound my car and perform a "custodial inventory" (re: search without a warrant), sitting in the back of his squad car for 3+ hours, and then having to pay the impound yard $280 per hour, plus $55 per night plus a $75 processing fee, totaling $970 to find absolutely nothing at all... please don't tell me the cops in america aren't corrupt.
The only difference is that the bribes (in this case kickbacks from the impound yard) have to go through 1 more layer of obfuscation before the cop gets his cut from the tow yard vs. paid directly.
For some reason my word alone isn't enough to counter the cops witness testimony, but the cops witness testimony is enough to convict.
All this because a racist white cop saw an asian in a sports car in an area that is predominantly hispanic and just had to find those drugs that didn't exist
The irony is that what the cop claims happened is not physically possible for any consumer car (let alone a sports car that costs less than $25k) yet in order to prove in court that the numbers don't add up it would require $25,000+ in expert witnesses to fight.
P.S. in America, the cops will knock down your door, steal loose cash, shoot you, then plant cocaine on your person and claim they just did a drug bust.
Why is it that the media can't mentally grasp the concept that Anonymous isn't actually a "group" and really just a bunch of individuals who have decided to take similar actions?
The You Hope part completely invalidates the "difference". Sure it is more difficult to make a copy of a physical book but it can be done. I seem to recall a slashdot article a home built book copier a few months ago. (Might of been on engadget though...)
Common Sense: how is she supposed to know where the satellite is so that she could have known before hand that she wouldn't be able to point the dish at it?
IANAL but, after the settlement for the civil suit goes through, she won't need that piece of paper and will be set for life.
Seriously though, what were the police thinking? The police should have specifically known that acting on these comments would place them and the college into a bad position. The fact alone that the comments lack immanency mean that they cannot take action as the "threats" are without credibility.
Second, the school cannot just ban access to it's campus based upon words that a student made that are not illegal. Not only is her speech protected speech, there is no excuse to single out this woman over the thousands of other women who express opinions of equivalent displeasure.
Does the university go into lock down every time someone mentions "far bomb"? Do people get arrested when talking about shooting up another person in counterstrike? Does the bomb squad come out when someone says "thats the bomb!"?
Again IANAL, but the "Terry Frisk" prior to entering the classroom by the police, like wise does not seem legal to me as well. First off, Terry v. Ohio limits the terry frisk to a non-invasive brief external frisk for hard objects that could potentially be weapons, for the purpose of officer safety.
Given the lack of immanency of the "threats" and the complete normality of such statements being made by individual whom were in a deep intimate relationship that turned into a deeply dissatisfied relationship, there lacks any "reasonable suspicion" for an officer to place himself in a position to deliberately detain in such a fashion as to create a non-consensual encounter that also allows the officer to terry-frisk when they otherwise would not be allowed either.
Terry vs. Ohio states that the limitation on when a Terry Frisk is exceptable when
"...the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?"
This of course begs the question, was the alleged intended victim of the woman at the class room? What articulable reason did the officer have to believe that the woman posed a danger to the occupants of the class room?
Personally, I hope she financially rapes the police department and the school. These "zero tolerance" policies are absurd and allow for great harm to come to innocent people due to out-of-context innocuous comments or a vindictive person who wishes to harass another.
What if you wanted to have access to downloadable content but don't play online games on xbox live and have a modded xbox so you can use it as an open region dvd player or other innocuous stuff?
Where the license and docs inside required as a contingent clause during the contractual exchange when he paid money for the product?
How exactly do you "agree" to be bound and restricted by the "license" and "document" that you cannot get access too until you purchase the product?
Shrink wrap license are unenforceable. If you are to be bound by terms and conditions, they must be present during the contractual exchange (i.e. paying money for the product).
Why don't we stop and think about this for a moment...
When you sell something, say your car, do you always offer the buyer your lowest price in hopes that he increases his offer as negotiations progress? Or do you, oh I don't know this may sound crazy, offer your highest price because he is going to negotiate it down?
You do realize that the $10,000,000 figure is the attorney's opening bid, to which the courts and the defendant (toyota) will argue the value down.
Very rarely do people ever argue the price they are willing to pay up.
That's funny, because when I bought my PS3 or video game, no where did I sign a contract stating that I agreed to be limited by any conditions...
Given the absence of a binding contract, I guess First Sale Doctrine comes into play? And that means I own the hardware and whatever is in it. I don't necessarily have rights to make reproduce and distribute, but I definitely own the physical object and what it contains.
EULA's don't mean shit unless they are agreed upon at the time of transfer of ownership as a contingency of the exchange.
(IANAL BTW...)
Re:Article seems like BS justification to me.
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, my work has 2 CD lines and 2 DVD lines (machines that make the discs from raw plastic pellets). We also have x3 40" offset sheet fed presses, x3 40" die-cutting presses, x3 40" UV coating screen presses and x2 Straightline folding carton gluers as well as a stitcher trimer for saddle stitching booklets.
We are not unique. We have a lot of competitors. So yes, there are in fact companies that do everything in one place. The customers like this because they do not have to buy out each part of the process at a different location and coordinate things. The $2.25 per unit does in fact include local shipping via our trucks to any local destination (within 50 miles).
So considering the $2.25 cost for each unit, there is a heck of a lot of profit to be had by reselling it @ $59.99.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand what the point of securing a wifi-access point is with regard to protection from police serving a warrant? Lets say that your wireless access point IS password protected with mac address filtering and someone bypassed this to use your router, you think the police are going to actually do their job and investigate or stop at the first thing they see? No, if you had a secure router, you better believe YOU are going to be the one they try and rape with the criminal justice system.
The whole child porn crime thing is getting absurd. As much as I dislike child porn, the laws for POSSESSION need to be relaxed. Right now, it is akin to being a witch in the 1800's, being a nazi in the 1940's, or a communist in the 1960's. Mere accusation alone is enough to destroy your life. As those in charge don't perform their due diligence in assessing the facts until after they take action which by then your life is ruined.
The intent is to stop the exploitation of children. But the result is the way in which child pornography is pursued, the exploitation of these children seem to be a secondary thing when the pursuit of people in possession is the purpose in which LEOS and DA's rally against because of the sensational headlines they carry. Not to mention the notches they get to cut in their belts.
Our child porn laws are getting so absurd that 16 year old girls who text naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends are getting charged with crimes and being labeled as sex offenders for their rest of their life. Grandmothers who take pictures of their infant/toddler children in the bath are getting prison sentences.
All so some DA or police chief/captain/lieutenant can look good and cut a notch on his belt.
There is no justice. It is just another commodity available only to those with the wealth and influence.
"It is essential to understand that the rites of penance require a personal dialogue between penitents and their confessor. It cannot be replaced by a computer application. I must stress to avoid all ambiguity, under no circumstance is it possible to confess by iPhone."
What he really means is that by controlling how you interact with god they can control you. Because the clergy are of course soooo holy that only they can speak for god.BR>
Where exactly in the bible does it call for a penitent to confess to a confessor, I seem to recall Jesus going around saying that you don't need a clergy person to connect you with god...
You must live in California, because that looks to be exactly the case as it stands here with one addition. Police gain protections and immunities both in state law and in federal law.
However what you described is only what is on paper and leaves out the many unwritten laws. Such as that the police, being above the law, get to decide when the law is enforced and may always claim a misinterpretation of the law to justify what would otherwise be criminal acts.
My favorite example of this is the HB police officer who was stalking a coke using stripper and eventually stalked her leaving her work, pulled her over, blew his load on her face and sweater and then left. Despite the DA prosecuting him proving that he had ran her plates through CLETS 30 minutes prior to her leaving her work and his pulling her over, and despite catching him in several perjuring statements in court, the judge and jury some how ruled that because she was a stripper, she was a professional at using her body to manipulate men, and that she had some how manipulated the officer into the circumstances to get out of the traffic incident.
Of course, then there is the case in San Diego where they mobilized the swat team to apprehend a teenager over a stolen PS3 and when they went to arrest him at his parents house opened up with their automatic weapons through a frosted glass door because the kid "had a weapon" when he was holding the PS3 controller...
Or then there is the guy who is serving time in jail for shooting a cop when the police were serving a no-knock warrant on a criminal who had left the apartment complex 6 months prior, and whose apartment was on the other side of the complex. The police broke into his apartment, never announced who they were and the guy reacted what any rational person would do, he immediately grabbed a handgun and went to his infant babies room and shot at the first armed attacker that came after him.
Or how about the mayor who uses a separate last name from his wife who received a random shipment of drugs. And despite the FBI, DEA and the state police knowing that it was just a blind ship and that the criminals often snatch it from the porch before the home owners get the package, the local police, decide to do a dynamic entry on the mayor. Breaking in and killing their two dogs (who were fleeing the cops) and arresting the mayor and his wife for drug trafficking...
Well, I can go on and on, but the facts remain that the police can basically do whatever the hell they want regardless of what some mere paper says their authority is restricted to.
And that is a false choice.
Would it be legal for Ford to design a car that detected if non-ford parts were used and shut the car down (make it non-operable) until the non-allowed parts are removed and allowed parts are put back on?
Voiding the warranty is perfectly fine, denying the use of legally purchased private property via extortion is not.
And who says you are held under any license agreement when you purchase a console anyways?
Last I checked, I didn't sign any contract when I forked over my cash for my Xbox 360. So where and when exactly did I enter into a legally binding contractual agreement under which licensing restrictions I must abide by?
On another note, I find great humor in the fact that Microsoft allows games like Grand Theft Auto, Saw, Deadspace and Assassin's Creed. You know, games that revolve around either dismembering the limbs of your opponents, raping, theft, murder, assassination, or countless other violent crimes that are amongst the most deplored acts of any society, but HEAVEN FORBID someone use their console for what is essentially masturbation and potentially improve their skill at copulating.
Aren't a lot of the bullshit requirements intended to justify H-1B visas?
I thought in order to qualify for H-1B, you had to first advertise in the local area and if you can't find people then you can apply for H-1B's (which you can then change the requirements).
I don't understand your last bit though. You say there is no difference between having known in the past and knowing now. How can you explain that without making no sense at all?
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I am not saying that you can't forget things, I am responding to when you said:
I think the issue is that taking a paper you wrote n-years ago, doesn't prove that you -still- know it, only that you did then.
I.E. that the arbitrary assumption that because someone wrote the paper in the past that they in fact don't know it now is bullshit.
Then what is the point of getting a degree?
I mean, afterwards, it doesn't prove that you know anything related to your field, after all that was years ago and covers what you knew then and not what you know now.
The distinction between now and then and knowing is, quite frankly, absolute pure bullshit.
I fail to see how public officials acting in a public capacity performing a public action while in public, that are not actively involved in a current criminal investigation have any expectation of privacy when doing public things in a public capacity in the public.
And given that a when a speed trap is set up, it is not a criminal investigation because no crime has occurred yet for there to be a criminal investigation of, and you cannot charge someone with a crime that has not been committed yet, nor can you charge someone with potentially committing a crime, thus disclosing to the public via electronic communication what public officials (police officers) acting in a public capacity (enforcing the law), while in public (outside in plain sight) is not interfering with a criminal investigation because no such criminal investigation exists involving the activity of those officers performing their speed trap.
However, abuse under the color of authority IS A FEDERAL CRIME which is what the police officers arresting such an individual for would be committing.
Also, wouldn't defamation be a civil issue and not criminal? What is their "standing" that they are claiming these disparaging words (being described as a "pig" or "incompetent") are causing damage to their public image? Especially as these disparaging words are not targeted at a specific individual and fall under "freedom of speech" given that they are a public governmental entity?
It is evident that these police officers are petty and vindictive and only taking action out of malice in retaliation for perceived disparaging words said against their competence. Their actions which, in my opinion, only seem to bring to light their competency (or lack thereof).
California Penal Code 12020
(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol, any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.
Why was a diabetic going out and drinking alcohol, which is nothing but carbs, i.e. sugar?
Child Porn is like toxic / nuclear waste. Once you touch it, you are contaminated forever.
There is a grandmother on the east coast who took pictures of her grandchild playing int he tub, a common occurrence. She was charged and convicted of child porn when she took the pictures to be developed. The DA didn't care about the details.
There is a girl in her early 20's who was caught sending naked pictures of her self to her boyfriends cell phone when she was 15 or 16. She was convicted of manufacturing and distributing child pornography and is now labeled as a sexual offender, was forced to drop out of school due to laws against sexual offenders and proximity to children and couldn't go to college (who would accept her?) and generally had her life fucked up because she took naked pictures of herself and shared them.
Child Porn and the zeal to which people combat it is zealotry at it's worst. All one would have to do is send such a picture to someone's phone or email and it doesn't matter how it got there, congratulations, your life is going to get ruined.
The problem with our Child Porn laws and pursuit of justice thereof, is that even Law Abiding citizens who do not deal with Child Porn fear even the accusation of it because whether actually guilty or not, merely having pictures of their children, other innocuous evidence such as porn with college teens in it, or no evidence at all, is enough to destroy their lives. In addition to the fact that jury's are completely ignorant and harsh against alleged perpetrators.
In the USA if the police knock on your door and ask to come in you can tell them to go away - And they have to.
Hahaha...
Oh wait, you are serious about believing that?
Having been a recipient of a corrupt cop lying in order to come up with a reason to arrest me so he could impound my car and perform a "custodial inventory" (re: search without a warrant), sitting in the back of his squad car for 3+ hours, and then having to pay the impound yard $280 per hour, plus $55 per night plus a $75 processing fee, totaling $970 to find absolutely nothing at all... please don't tell me the cops in america aren't corrupt.
The only difference is that the bribes (in this case kickbacks from the impound yard) have to go through 1 more layer of obfuscation before the cop gets his cut from the tow yard vs. paid directly.
For some reason my word alone isn't enough to counter the cops witness testimony, but the cops witness testimony is enough to convict.
All this because a racist white cop saw an asian in a sports car in an area that is predominantly hispanic and just had to find those drugs that didn't exist
The irony is that what the cop claims happened is not physically possible for any consumer car (let alone a sports car that costs less than $25k) yet in order to prove in court that the numbers don't add up it would require $25,000+ in expert witnesses to fight.
P.S. in America, the cops will knock down your door, steal loose cash, shoot you, then plant cocaine on your person and claim they just did a drug bust.
Why is it that the media can't mentally grasp the concept that Anonymous isn't actually a "group" and really just a bunch of individuals who have decided to take similar actions?
So... how exactly do you learn about using a trolley to do a trucking shot, while doing still photography?
How exactly do you learn about what makes a good scene break / transition, while doing still photography?
The You Hope part completely invalidates the "difference". Sure it is more difficult to make a copy of a physical book but it can be done. I seem to recall a slashdot article a home built book copier a few months ago. (Might of been on engadget though...)
Common Sense: how is she supposed to know where the satellite is so that she could have known before hand that she wouldn't be able to point the dish at it?
Seriously though, what were the police thinking? The police should have specifically known that acting on these comments would place them and the college into a bad position. The fact alone that the comments lack immanency mean that they cannot take action as the "threats" are without credibility.
Second, the school cannot just ban access to it's campus based upon words that a student made that are not illegal. Not only is her speech protected speech, there is no excuse to single out this woman over the thousands of other women who express opinions of equivalent displeasure.
Does the university go into lock down every time someone mentions "far bomb"? Do people get arrested when talking about shooting up another person in counterstrike? Does the bomb squad come out when someone says "thats the bomb!"?
Again IANAL, but the "Terry Frisk" prior to entering the classroom by the police, like wise does not seem legal to me as well. First off, Terry v. Ohio limits the terry frisk to a non-invasive brief external frisk for hard objects that could potentially be weapons, for the purpose of officer safety.
Given the lack of immanency of the "threats" and the complete normality of such statements being made by individual whom were in a deep intimate relationship that turned into a deeply dissatisfied relationship, there lacks any "reasonable suspicion" for an officer to place himself in a position to deliberately detain in such a fashion as to create a non-consensual encounter that also allows the officer to terry-frisk when they otherwise would not be allowed either.
Terry vs. Ohio states that the limitation on when a Terry Frisk is exceptable when
"...the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?"
This of course begs the question, was the alleged intended victim of the woman at the class room? What articulable reason did the officer have to believe that the woman posed a danger to the occupants of the class room?
Personally, I hope she financially rapes the police department and the school. These "zero tolerance" policies are absurd and allow for great harm to come to innocent people due to out-of-context innocuous comments or a vindictive person who wishes to harass another.
Printers are serious business...
(P.S. I agree with all of the above =P)
What if you wanted to have access to downloadable content but don't play online games on xbox live and have a modded xbox so you can use it as an open region dvd player or other innocuous stuff?
And were these documents part of the contractual exchange prior to transfer of ownership of property?
Where the license and docs inside required as a contingent clause during the contractual exchange when he paid money for the product?
How exactly do you "agree" to be bound and restricted by the "license" and "document" that you cannot get access too until you purchase the product?
Shrink wrap license are unenforceable. If you are to be bound by terms and conditions, they must be present during the contractual exchange (i.e. paying money for the product).
weird isn't worth $10 million...
Isn't worth 10 million?
Why don't we stop and think about this for a moment...
When you sell something, say your car, do you always offer the buyer your lowest price in hopes that he increases his offer as negotiations progress? Or do you, oh I don't know this may sound crazy, offer your highest price because he is going to negotiate it down?
You do realize that the $10,000,000 figure is the attorney's opening bid, to which the courts and the defendant (toyota) will argue the value down.
Very rarely do people ever argue the price they are willing to pay up.
That's funny, because when I bought my PS3 or video game, no where did I sign a contract stating that I agreed to be limited by any conditions...
Given the absence of a binding contract, I guess First Sale Doctrine comes into play? And that means I own the hardware and whatever is in it. I don't necessarily have rights to make reproduce and distribute, but I definitely own the physical object and what it contains.
EULA's don't mean shit unless they are agreed upon at the time of transfer of ownership as a contingency of the exchange.
(IANAL BTW...)
Actually, my work has 2 CD lines and 2 DVD lines (machines that make the discs from raw plastic pellets). We also have x3 40" offset sheet fed presses, x3 40" die-cutting presses, x3 40" UV coating screen presses and x2 Straightline folding carton gluers as well as a stitcher trimer for saddle stitching booklets.
We are not unique. We have a lot of competitors. So yes, there are in fact companies that do everything in one place. The customers like this because they do not have to buy out each part of the process at a different location and coordinate things. The $2.25 per unit does in fact include local shipping via our trucks to any local destination (within 50 miles).
So considering the $2.25 cost for each unit, there is a heck of a lot of profit to be had by reselling it @ $59.99.