Yes, I know about Miranda. Did you know that Mr. Miranda was CONVICTED after the case was remanded to the lower court? Do you know that Prosecutors LOVE Miranda warnings, since it is very difficult to argue that a confession was not the product of free will when the confession was preceded by an oral warning? Talk about misrepresenting the facts of the case and twisting evidence to fit your own agenda.
I'm also confused why you think it is wrong that defendants can argue that their constitutional rights were violated. You imply that they shouldn't be allowed to do this, since criminals will lie and destroy evidence. Well, I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the innocent defendants out there who aren't lying or spoiling evidence. Let the Judge and Jury decide if the defendant is telling the truth or destroying evidence. We don't need a rule to determine this, but we do need a rule which allows the issue to be heard.
Sniping works because it allows you to play the auction game with the most information possible. At the beginning and middle of an auction, information such as price, demand, number of bidders, and the description of the item, can change and therefore causes uncertainty. For example, lots of sellers, towards the end of an auction, will lower prices if no one bids on it. Other sellers will change the items discription, and add incentives.
I only look at items with less than one day remaining. I find an item with no reserve (or a reserve I know) and a few bidders. Then I place a reasonable bid. This will bring out the rest of the bidders who may or may not bid. It also protects me against bidders/buyers remorse. A half hour before the auction ends, I raise my bid to the maximum I will tolerate.
You, and people like you, are the reason why George W. Bush is President today. You failed to vote strategically. You failed to vote in your best interest. You failed to compromise on some of your principals and allowed a great evil to happen to this country. If you voted for Ralph Nader, your vote could have been cast for Al Gore. If Al Gore won, we wouldn't have been in the mess we find ourselves in today. It's your fault.
A terrorist is a non-governmental entity acting outside of international law who deliberately and specifically selects civilians as direct targets of unlawful physical violence and violence against property without attempting to minimize civilian casualties, for the purpose of provoking fear and intimidation civilians, to achieve a political or religious goal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
<i>Is it someone who kills for political or economic reasons?</i>
No, that would be plain old vanilla murder.
<i>Is it an entire country that wages an illegal war of aggression based on manufactured 'evidence' of WOMD?</i>
No, a government waging a pure unlawful war of aggression against another nation-state could be guilty of violating the UN Charter, Customary International Law, violating the Laws of War, and various War Crimes such as Crimes against Humanity. The State would not be guilty of Terrorism.
<i>How about how many Palestinians are killed by the Israelis?</i>
I think a better metric would be to count how many Palestinians were killed by Israelis on purpose and not as a result of legitimate military strikes. And vice-versa. A car traveling down a lightly populated street with 4 Palestinians with rockets is a legitimate target. A truck carrying Israeli soldiers along the border is a legitimate target. A civilian bus stop is usually NOT a legitmate target. A crowded street is usually NOT a legitimate target.
However, when Israel, a legitimate government, targets a car full of Terrorists, travelling openly through a civilian area, and destroys it, it is acting legally, even if civilians are killed. When the Abu Schmuckar Brigade, a bunch of hookah smoking friends decide to plant a roadside bomb to blow up a school bus full of Israeli children to express their frustration with the Israeli occupation, then that is Terrorism.
I do agree with you that not all Muslims are terrorists. I know quite a few nice Arabs who couldn't care less about this crap. However, most, but not all terrorists ARE MUSLIM. This is a legitimate and rational thought. Racism springs from unwarrented stereotypes. Like all goateed hipee Australians support Palestinean and Malasian terrorists. Thats unfair.
Your wrong when you say that the drone doesn't really inconvenience anyone. The mere fact that the government could be reading what I am writing on my laptop in my backyard scares me. What if I am working on a company trade secret that will compete with a government service? What if I am doing something legal that I don't want the government seeing me do, like shooting cans in my backyard or sunbathing nude?
Your wrong when you imply that the prohibition against unlawful search and seizure was solely included in the Bill of Rightsto protect against abuse by crooked policemen. Searches require warrents, a piece of paper approved by a Judge. It was included to prevent against arbitrary searches and seizures by an overenthusiastic government without oversight.
Your wrong when you make the slippery slope argument that without the drones the government would have to bash down everyones door. On second thought, you might be right, since the Supreme Court in effect just ruled that the police don't have to knock before entering your residence.
Your wrong when you imply that criminals use the Bill of Rights to cheat the criminal justice system. If evidence which is unlawfully obtained is not excluded from a court of law, what incentive will the police have to follow the law? If the police have acted unlawfully, what assurances do we have that the evidence is not tainted in other ways?
Your also wrong when you try to pander to what you percieve as a liberal bias on/. by pretending to be "pretty liberal". Real liberals believe that the rule of law should be moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities, and which places constraints on the various branches of government and limits the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised. It also means supporting an individual's right to own property and enter freely into contracts.
The real emphasis here is the right of the individual to have immunity from the arbitrary exercise of govermental authority.
I agree with the laws that I am supposed to abide by. I only disagree with your unconstitutional interpretation of them. Why don't YOU go find a country that shares your values, like Iran.
What you fail to understand is that anyone who mentions LaRouche, Scientology, Cabal, and "rational people" in the same paragraph is obviously a trouble maker. Or probably just a Troll, but I'll take the bait.
Judging by your post here on Slashdot, the real problem are your veiled insults, your references to imaginary cabals, your complete lack of links to the examples of the cabal's supposed bad behavior, and your poor logic and writing skills.
""Google is like the Borg," said Milo Medin, a computer networking expert who was a founder of the 1990's online service @Home, referring to the robotic species on "Star Trek" that was forcibly assembled from millions of species and computer components. "I know of no other carrier or enterprise that distributes applications on top of their computing resource as effectively as Google.""
Which begs the question, which I pose for the rest of Slashdot, If Google is the Borg, What is Microsoft? Certainly not the Federation. That would be Linux. Perhaps Microsoft would be the Romulans?
This whole argument revolves around whether the documentation that would help you make the drivers to control this encryption device is software. There is a very strong argument that it is software. There are some strong arguments that it is not. Best to lean on the side of safety, from a legal perspective.
Can't say I blame the company for making a developer who lives in a foreign country (Canada), follow US Custom laws.
Another great online spreadsheet service is Numsum. They are located at http://numsum.com/
I haven't tried out google's spreadsheets yet, but I can tell you why online spreadsheets are the way to go...they allow people to share mathematical ideas and calculations easily.
For example, I created a spreadsheet that compares various hourly rates for contract workers. http://numsum.com/spreadsheet/show/20511 -- its not perfect, but it allows anyone, including someone without any technical knowledge, access to quick and easy information. There are Ebay spreadsheets, Business Spreadsheets, etc, available free of charge. Imagine how powerful that can be!
So, for example, if you want to protest your child having to go to a biology class on evolution, picketing with signs inside the school is not going to fly. The Principal can force the editor of a school sponsored newspaper to change his editorial. The general rule is that the Public School can take reasonable steps to promote a positive learning environment and enforce discipline relating to those ends. So, banning a privately published student newspaper is unconstitutional, as is forbidding students who have a strict dresscode from wearing arm bands to protest a war.
The issue here is twofold: whether the school can censor the websites that students use and whether the school can prevent a student from working on a private blog from school. I think a school can obviously block pornographic or riske sites, as well as those that they deem to have no educational value. (Not that I would if I were in charge though) It is less than clear whether or not a school can prevent a student from working on a private blog from home (I would hope not). Preventing a student on his/her free time during recess or study hall from writing on a blog? Unclear.
I think blogging should be allowed by students during their free time while they are not in class on school grounds. I seriously doubt that a school would have a problem with a student writing a note in her personal handwritten journal, that she then lets her friends read. Anything that encourages writing should be promoted, IMHO.
Like it or not, US law is directly descended from religeous courts in England.
BULLSH*T
If you go to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law , as you suggested, it states that Common Law is derived from Roman and Germanic Tribal Laws and Customs. In fact, the creation of the Common Law, along with a strong Court system, ran in direct opposition the Church's courts. Not only are you a troll, you are a complete and utter moron.
So, ATI is behind the curve again. NVIDIA announced HAVOK support months ago. And to you PhysX fanboys, you must have missed the Maximum PC review which trounced Agia's new offering.
This is a classic case of why consumers should have a private right of action to sue in court under the civil law. HIPAA does not allow individuals to sue a hospital or doctor for violations of the statute. (However, a stricter State statute or privacy or contract law might allow a suit)
There is a growing trend in U.S. Federal Law that grants people rights, but does not allow them a remedy if there is a violation of these rights. This is a direct outgrowth of 20 years of conservative Supreme Court rulings that have gutted the power of the Judiciary to provide remedies for violations of the law.
The thought process is "well, Congress said you have a right to have your information kept private, but didn't explicitly say that anyone besides the State can enforce this remedy, so oh well, your screwed if the government doesn't want to do anything."
This thought process is not only unjust, but goes against 500+ years of legal of Common Law. Where you have a right, you should always have a remedy. It is an axiom, and 20+ years of Republican Judicial Activists have destroyed this notion. It is not right, and it is not fair. And it is not conservative. It is radical and undemocratic, and goes against the rule of law.
I'm curious why the plaintiffs in this case didn't file a "trespass to chattels" in addition to their other causes of action. I'm also curious why there wasn't a breach of contract claim made.
Regardless, I am sure that the corporate attorneys could have accessed the sight using legal means. Like google cache or coral cache, or what have you.
I wonder if anyone knows why burning CDs is such an issue with this particular release.
I was finally able to burn the alternate ISO to CD in Linux using Breezy's Nautilus Burning Utility. Simple as right clicking on the disk image and selecting burn to CD. Why on earth I couldn't create a disk image under XP is beyond me. I used three different ISO burning programs with no luck. This is a serious issue if we want Windows XP users to switch over to Linux and Ubuntu. I think a powerful GPL ISO burning program for Windows should be linked to in the download section. A lot of people only have access to the OEM version of Nero and not the more powerful Nero Burning ROM...so, something needs to be done. And its not as if I haven't burned ISOs before, I've done tons! I did 8 CDs for Debian for chirsts sake, with no hitches.
So, is there a special burn procedure that needs to be used for these CDs under XP???
I'm having the exact same problem. I burned the ISO over 5 times onto a CD, and I even redownloaded the ISO from Bittorrent to make sure all the bits were correct and reburned as an ISO. Something is horribly wrong with this Live CD installer. And to Pecisk and all of the Ubuntu Crew, who says, "use the alternative version" of the installer, go fuck yourselves. I wasted over a half a day burning this new revolutionary Live CD -- and it didn't work. It was marketed as the next greatest thing since sliced bread to bring the masses to Ubuntu and it fell flat on its face.
Ubuntu's Live CDs have always sucked. I downloaded the Hoary Live CD and it never seemed to work properly. Today, I spent all morning downloading the Dapper CD...twice! Both times the ISO crapped out on me and didn't boot properly on start up. It displayed an insert curser and hung for 2 minutes. Then it went to Grub. I am now using Bittorrent to download the alternate install CD which hopefully will work.
I love Ubuntu, but this live cd graphical installer, IMHO, is a complete and utter failure. Shame on Ubuntu for putting this kind of crap out. I've wasted half a day trying to get the CD to work. I'm not using weird hardware...I have a common Asus Mobo and an Athlon 64 chip. There is no reason for this not to work. I consider myself a sophistocated Linux user, and if a newb had to go through all this trouble, they would have quit by now. Arg.
I am usually an Ubuntu FanBoy, so please, feel free to mod me down as a Troll. But its true. Dapper seems to be sucking pretty hard right now.
This type of warrant seems to not require any sort of "probable cause", but only needs to be done under authority of law. Am I mistaken that this seems very close to a subpeona power that any offical (including ministers and non-judicial officers, like a constible) can issue, rather than a court ordered warrant? Thats why it seems scarey to an American like me.
This law is so big brother, it makes me wanna vomit. Thank g-d we don't have this in the USA. Oh wait, we do. Its called the Patriot Act. Any judge can order you to turn over your crypto keys. But at least its not as broad as just requiring a "notice from an authority".
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 2000 Chapter 23
PART III INVESTIGATION OF ELECTRONIC DATA PROTECTED BY ENCRYPTION ETC.
Power to require disclosure Notices requiring disclosure.
49. - (1) This section applies where any protected information-
(a) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of a statutory power to seize, detain, inspect, search or otherwise to interfere with documents or other property, or is likely to do so;
(b) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of any statutory power to intercept communications, or is likely to do so;
(c) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of any power conferred by an authorisation under section 22(3) or under Part II, or as a result of the giving of a notice under section 22(4), or is likely to do so;
(d) has come into the possession of any person as a result of having been provided or disclosed in pursuance of any statutory duty (whether or not one arising as a result of a request for information), or is likely to do so; or
(e) has, by any other lawful means not involving the exercise of statutory powers, come into the possession of any of the intelligence services, the police or the customs and excise, or is likely so to come into the possession of any of those services, the police or the customs and excise.
(2) If any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2 believes, on reasonable grounds-
(a) that a key to the protected information is in the possession of any person,
(b) that the imposition of a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information is-
(i) necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3), or
(ii) necessary for the purpose of securing the effective exercise or proper performance by any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty,
(c) that the imposition of such a requirement is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by its imposition, and
(d) that it is not reasonably practicable for the person with the appropriate permission to obtain possession of the protected information in an intelligible form without the giving of a notice under this section,
the person with that permission may, by notice to the person whom he believes to have possession of the key, impose a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information.
(3) A disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary-
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
(4) A notice under this section imposing a disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information-
(a) must be given in writing or (if not in writing) must be given in a manner that produces a record of its having been given;
(b) must describe the protected information to which the notice relates;
(c) must specify the matters falling within subsection (2)(b)(i) or (ii) by reference to which the notice is given;
(d) must specify the office,
No, he can not. In fact, Lincoln was rebuffed by the Supreme Court for trying confederate soldiers in a military court while on US soil. Remember, the United States Constitution says that, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law.
From Wikipedia: Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to riots, local militia actions and the threat that the Southern slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., in the south. He was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order.
The, oh, but Lincoln did it, is not an argument. We are a nation of laws, not men. Besides, remember how many people HATED Lincoln at the time. A lot. He was very unpopular. And not just in the South, but also in the North. In hindsite, he did lots of great things, but also, lots of dumb things too.
Rule 8.4 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct state that in order to maintain the integrity of of the legal profession, it is considered professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Furthermore, if this professor truely believes that this is extortion, he needs to report the lawyers to the appropriate legal authorities. Rule 8.3 states that a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. Not reporting this behavior is in itself a violation of the law.
And if you really think that the US market is gonna tank, you can put your money where your mouth is, and short your stocks if they are outside your 401k.
Or, sell some covered calls on your US stocks within your 401k. Sellin calls is fun:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know about Miranda. Did you know that Mr. Miranda was CONVICTED after the case was remanded to the lower court? Do you know that Prosecutors LOVE Miranda warnings, since it is very difficult to argue that a confession was not the product of free will when the confession was preceded by an oral warning? Talk about misrepresenting the facts of the case and twisting evidence to fit your own agenda.
I'm also confused why you think it is wrong that defendants can argue that their constitutional rights were violated. You imply that they shouldn't be allowed to do this, since criminals will lie and destroy evidence. Well, I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the innocent defendants out there who aren't lying or spoiling evidence. Let the Judge and Jury decide if the defendant is telling the truth or destroying evidence. We don't need a rule to determine this, but we do need a rule which allows the issue to be heard.
You're right that I spelled "your" wrong. meh.
Sniping works because it allows you to play the auction game with the most information possible. At the beginning and middle of an auction, information such as price, demand, number of bidders, and the description of the item, can change and therefore causes uncertainty. For example, lots of sellers, towards the end of an auction, will lower prices if no one bids on it. Other sellers will change the items discription, and add incentives.
I only look at items with less than one day remaining. I find an item with no reserve (or a reserve I know) and a few bidders. Then I place a reasonable bid. This will bring out the rest of the bidders who may or may not bid. It also protects me against bidders/buyers remorse. A half hour before the auction ends, I raise my bid to the maximum I will tolerate.
You, and people like you, are the reason why George W. Bush is President today. You failed to vote strategically. You failed to vote in your best interest. You failed to compromise on some of your principals and allowed a great evil to happen to this country. If you voted for Ralph Nader, your vote could have been cast for Al Gore. If Al Gore won, we wouldn't have been in the mess we find ourselves in today. It's your fault.
What is a terrorist?
A terrorist is a non-governmental entity acting outside of international law who deliberately and specifically selects civilians as direct targets of unlawful physical violence and violence against property without attempting to minimize civilian casualties, for the purpose of provoking fear and intimidation civilians, to achieve a political or religious goal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
<i>Is it someone who kills for political or economic reasons?</i>
No, that would be plain old vanilla murder.
<i>Is it an entire country that wages an illegal war of aggression based on manufactured 'evidence' of WOMD?</i>
No, a government waging a pure unlawful war of aggression against another nation-state could be guilty of violating the UN Charter, Customary International Law, violating the Laws of War, and various War Crimes such as Crimes against Humanity. The State would not be guilty of Terrorism.
<i>How about how many Palestinians are killed by the Israelis?</i>
I think a better metric would be to count how many Palestinians were killed by Israelis on purpose and not as a result of legitimate military strikes. And vice-versa. A car traveling down a lightly populated street with 4 Palestinians with rockets is a legitimate target. A truck carrying Israeli soldiers along the border is a legitimate target. A civilian bus stop is usually NOT a legitmate target. A crowded street is usually NOT a legitimate target.
However, when Israel, a legitimate government, targets a car full of Terrorists, travelling openly through a civilian area, and destroys it, it is acting legally, even if civilians are killed. When the Abu Schmuckar Brigade, a bunch of hookah smoking friends decide to plant a roadside bomb to blow up a school bus full of Israeli children to express their frustration with the Israeli occupation, then that is Terrorism.
I do agree with you that not all Muslims are terrorists. I know quite a few nice Arabs who couldn't care less about this crap. However, most, but not all terrorists ARE MUSLIM. This is a legitimate and rational thought. Racism springs from unwarrented stereotypes. Like all goateed hipee Australians support Palestinean and Malasian terrorists. Thats unfair.
Your wrong on this one.
/. by pretending to be "pretty liberal". Real liberals believe that the rule of law should be moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities, and which places constraints on the various branches of government and limits the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised. It also means supporting an individual's right to own property and enter freely into contracts.
Your wrong when you say that the drone doesn't really inconvenience anyone. The mere fact that the government could be reading what I am writing on my laptop in my backyard scares me. What if I am working on a company trade secret that will compete with a government service? What if I am doing something legal that I don't want the government seeing me do, like shooting cans in my backyard or sunbathing nude?
Your wrong when you imply that the prohibition against unlawful search and seizure was solely included in the Bill of Rightsto protect against abuse by crooked policemen. Searches require warrents, a piece of paper approved by a Judge. It was included to prevent against arbitrary searches and seizures by an overenthusiastic government without oversight.
Your wrong when you make the slippery slope argument that without the drones the government would have to bash down everyones door. On second thought, you might be right, since the Supreme Court in effect just ruled that the police don't have to knock before entering your residence.
Your wrong when you imply that criminals use the Bill of Rights to cheat the criminal justice system. If evidence which is unlawfully obtained is not excluded from a court of law, what incentive will the police have to follow the law? If the police have acted unlawfully, what assurances do we have that the evidence is not tainted in other ways?
Your also wrong when you try to pander to what you percieve as a liberal bias on
The real emphasis here is the right of the individual to have immunity from the arbitrary exercise of govermental authority.
I agree with the laws that I am supposed to abide by. I only disagree with your unconstitutional interpretation of them. Why don't YOU go find a country that shares your values, like Iran.
What you fail to understand is that anyone who mentions LaRouche, Scientology, Cabal, and "rational people" in the same paragraph is obviously a trouble maker. Or probably just a Troll, but I'll take the bait.
Judging by your post here on Slashdot, the real problem are your veiled insults, your references to imaginary cabals, your complete lack of links to the examples of the cabal's supposed bad behavior, and your poor logic and writing skills.
Kinda catchy, aint it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
What a great quote from a NY Times Article:
""Google is like the Borg," said Milo Medin, a computer networking expert who was a founder of the 1990's online service @Home, referring to the robotic species on "Star Trek" that was forcibly assembled from millions of species and computer components. "I know of no other carrier or enterprise that distributes applications on top of their computing resource as effectively as Google.""
Which begs the question, which I pose for the rest of Slashdot, If Google is the Borg, What is Microsoft? Certainly not the Federation. That would be Linux. Perhaps Microsoft would be the Romulans?
Much too long to paste for a slashdot article, but here are the export restriction regulations for encryption hardware and software:
t
http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/ccl5-pt2.tx
This whole argument revolves around whether the documentation that would help you make the drivers to control this encryption device is software. There is a very strong argument that it is software. There are some strong arguments that it is not. Best to lean on the side of safety, from a legal perspective.
Can't say I blame the company for making a developer who lives in a foreign country (Canada), follow US Custom laws.
I can dream, right?
Another great online spreadsheet service is Numsum. They are located at http://numsum.com/
I haven't tried out google's spreadsheets yet, but I can tell you why online spreadsheets are the way to go...they allow people to share mathematical ideas and calculations easily.
For example, I created a spreadsheet that compares various hourly rates for contract workers. http://numsum.com/spreadsheet/show/20511 -- its not perfect, but it allows anyone, including someone without any technical knowledge, access to quick and easy information. There are Ebay spreadsheets, Business Spreadsheets, etc, available free of charge. Imagine how powerful that can be!
So, for example, if you want to protest your child having to go to a biology class on evolution, picketing with signs inside the school is not going to fly. The Principal can force the editor of a school sponsored newspaper to change his editorial. The general rule is that the Public School can take reasonable steps to promote a positive learning environment and enforce discipline relating to those ends. So, banning a privately published student newspaper is unconstitutional, as is forbidding students who have a strict dresscode from wearing arm bands to protest a war.
The issue here is twofold: whether the school can censor the websites that students use and whether the school can prevent a student from working on a private blog from school. I think a school can obviously block pornographic or riske sites, as well as those that they deem to have no educational value. (Not that I would if I were in charge though) It is less than clear whether or not a school can prevent a student from working on a private blog from home (I would hope not). Preventing a student on his/her free time during recess or study hall from writing on a blog? Unclear.
I think blogging should be allowed by students during their free time while they are not in class on school grounds. I seriously doubt that a school would have a problem with a student writing a note in her personal handwritten journal, that she then lets her friends read. Anything that encourages writing should be promoted, IMHO.
Like it or not, US law is directly descended from religeous courts in England.
BULLSH*T
If you go to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law , as you suggested, it states that Common Law is derived from Roman and Germanic Tribal Laws and Customs. In fact, the creation of the Common Law, along with a strong Court system, ran in direct opposition the Church's courts. Not only are you a troll, you are a complete and utter moron.
So, ATI is behind the curve again. NVIDIA announced HAVOK support months ago. And to you PhysX fanboys, you must have missed the Maximum PC review which trounced Agia's new offering.
This is a classic case of why consumers should have a private right of action to sue in court under the civil law. HIPAA does not allow individuals to sue a hospital or doctor for violations of the statute. (However, a stricter State statute or privacy or contract law might allow a suit)
s ue.htm and http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/2001-11-12/meade. html
There is a growing trend in U.S. Federal Law that grants people rights, but does not allow them a remedy if there is a violation of these rights. This is a direct outgrowth of 20 years of conservative Supreme Court rulings that have gutted the power of the Judiciary to provide remedies for violations of the law.
The thought process is "well, Congress said you have a right to have your information kept private, but didn't explicitly say that anyone besides the State can enforce this remedy, so oh well, your screwed if the government doesn't want to do anything."
This thought process is not only unjust, but goes against 500+ years of legal of Common Law. Where you have a right, you should always have a remedy. It is an axiom, and 20+ years of Republican Judicial Activists have destroyed this notion. It is not right, and it is not fair. And it is not conservative. It is radical and undemocratic, and goes against the rule of law.
See: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8a-hipaa.htm and http://www.healthlawtoday.com/hipaa/files/rightto
I'm curious why the plaintiffs in this case didn't file a "trespass to chattels" in addition to their other causes of action. I'm also curious why there wasn't a breach of contract claim made.
Regardless, I am sure that the corporate attorneys could have accessed the sight using legal means. Like google cache or coral cache, or what have you.
I wonder if anyone knows why burning CDs is such an issue with this particular release.
I was finally able to burn the alternate ISO to CD in Linux using Breezy's Nautilus Burning Utility. Simple as right clicking on the disk image and selecting burn to CD. Why on earth I couldn't create a disk image under XP is beyond me. I used three different ISO burning programs with no luck. This is a serious issue if we want Windows XP users to switch over to Linux and Ubuntu. I think a powerful GPL ISO burning program for Windows should be linked to in the download section. A lot of people only have access to the OEM version of Nero and not the more powerful Nero Burning ROM...so, something needs to be done. And its not as if I haven't burned ISOs before, I've done tons! I did 8 CDs for Debian for chirsts sake, with no hitches.
So, is there a special burn procedure that needs to be used for these CDs under XP???
I'm having the exact same problem. I burned the ISO over 5 times onto a CD, and I even redownloaded the ISO from Bittorrent to make sure all the bits were correct and reburned as an ISO. Something is horribly wrong with this Live CD installer. And to Pecisk and all of the Ubuntu Crew, who says, "use the alternative version" of the installer, go fuck yourselves. I wasted over a half a day burning this new revolutionary Live CD -- and it didn't work. It was marketed as the next greatest thing since sliced bread to bring the masses to Ubuntu and it fell flat on its face.
Is anyone as pissed off as I am?
Ubuntu's Live CDs have always sucked. I downloaded the Hoary Live CD and it never seemed to work properly. Today, I spent all morning downloading the Dapper CD...twice! Both times the ISO crapped out on me and didn't boot properly on start up. It displayed an insert curser and hung for 2 minutes. Then it went to Grub. I am now using Bittorrent to download the alternate install CD which hopefully will work.
I love Ubuntu, but this live cd graphical installer, IMHO, is a complete and utter failure. Shame on Ubuntu for putting this kind of crap out. I've wasted half a day trying to get the CD to work. I'm not using weird hardware...I have a common Asus Mobo and an Athlon 64 chip. There is no reason for this not to work. I consider myself a sophistocated Linux user, and if a newb had to go through all this trouble, they would have quit by now. Arg.
I am usually an Ubuntu FanBoy, so please, feel free to mod me down as a Troll. But its true. Dapper seems to be sucking pretty hard right now.
This type of warrant seems to not require any sort of "probable cause", but only needs to be done under authority of law. Am I mistaken that this seems very close to a subpeona power that any offical (including ministers and non-judicial officers, like a constible) can issue, rather than a court ordered warrant? Thats why it seems scarey to an American like me.
This law is so big brother, it makes me wanna vomit. Thank g-d we don't have this in the USA. Oh wait, we do. Its called the Patriot Act. Any judge can order you to turn over your crypto keys. But at least its not as broad as just requiring a "notice from an authority".
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm# 49
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
2000 Chapter 23
PART III
INVESTIGATION OF ELECTRONIC DATA PROTECTED BY ENCRYPTION ETC.
Power to require disclosure
Notices requiring disclosure.
49. - (1) This section applies where any protected information-
(a) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of a statutory power to seize, detain, inspect, search or otherwise to interfere with documents or other property, or is likely to do so;
(b) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of any statutory power to intercept communications, or is likely to do so;
(c) has come into the possession of any person by means of the exercise of any power conferred by an authorisation under section 22(3) or under Part II, or as a result of the giving of a notice under section 22(4), or is likely to do so;
(d) has come into the possession of any person as a result of having been provided or disclosed in pursuance of any statutory duty (whether or not one arising as a result of a request for information), or is likely to do so; or
(e) has, by any other lawful means not involving the exercise of statutory powers, come into the possession of any of the intelligence services, the police or the customs and excise, or is likely so to come into the possession of any of those services, the police or the customs and excise.
(2) If any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2 believes, on reasonable grounds-
(a) that a key to the protected information is in the possession of any person,
(b) that the imposition of a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information is-
(i) necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3), or
(ii) necessary for the purpose of securing the effective exercise or proper performance by any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty,
(c) that the imposition of such a requirement is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by its imposition, and
(d) that it is not reasonably practicable for the person with the appropriate permission to obtain possession of the protected information in an intelligible form without the giving of a notice under this section,
the person with that permission may, by notice to the person whom he believes to have possession of the key, impose a disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information.
(3) A disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary-
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
(4) A notice under this section imposing a disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information-
(a) must be given in writing or (if not in writing) must be given in a manner that produces a record of its having been given;
(b) must describe the protected information to which the notice relates;
(c) must specify the matters falling within subsection (2)(b)(i) or (ii) by reference to which the notice is given;
(d) must specify the office,
No, he can not. In fact, Lincoln was rebuffed by the Supreme Court for trying confederate soldiers in a military court while on US soil. Remember, the United States Constitution says that, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law.
From Wikipedia:
Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to riots, local militia actions and the threat that the Southern slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., in the south. He was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order.
The, oh, but Lincoln did it, is not an argument. We are a nation of laws, not men. Besides, remember how many people HATED Lincoln at the time. A lot. He was very unpopular. And not just in the South, but also in the North. In hindsite, he did lots of great things, but also, lots of dumb things too.
The Ethics Board. The people who take away your license.
Rule 8.4 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct state that in order to maintain the integrity of of the legal profession, it is considered professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Furthermore, if this professor truely believes that this is extortion, he needs to report the lawyers to the appropriate legal authorities. Rule 8.3 states that a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. Not reporting this behavior is in itself a violation of the law.
And if you really think that the US market is gonna tank, you can put your money where your mouth is, and short your stocks if they are outside your 401k.
:-)
Or, sell some covered calls on your US stocks within your 401k. Sellin calls is fun