If you had meant "the common law standard in NY" you should have said so. When you use the definite article without any qualifications such as "in the state of NY", you are in fact saying the, one and only standard.
Even if you had meant "the common law standard applied in the state of NY", I fail to see how that in any way rebutts, my saying that in most jurisdictions children under a certain age (6 or 7) are not held to this standard.
As to why I would be criticize a NY judge for applying NY law in this case, to quote Charles Dickens, "If the law supposes that [a child of 4 1/2 years is capable of exercising the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, experience and prudence, required by the reasonable man/person standard] then the law is an ass. If that's the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience".
When you say "THE" common law standard you infer that there is only one when in fact there are at least three.
In some jurisdictions, a child of "tender years" is a person "of such immature years as to be incapable of exercising the judgement, intelligence, knowledge, experience and prudence demanded by the standard of the reasonable man and as a result of youth lack the capacity to know or realize the danger". Jurisdictions that employ this approach often set age limits on child liabilty, 6 or 7 years of age is common place.
Similiarly, in other jurisdictions, children under the age of 7, as a matter or law, are conclusively presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence and children aged 7 to 14 are presumed to be incapable of negligence.
Still other jurisdiction reject hard age limits on child liability. Unless the child is so young that no reasonable person could find them capable, the question of capability is left to the jury (with appropriate instruction on the standard of care).
It appears that NY uses the third approach, but it does not appear there is one, universal standard on child liability, and in fact, as I stated, in most jurisdictions, children under age 6 or 7 are not deemed capable of negligence.
The judge uses language which clearly indicates he is clueless to the nature of a child. He talks about a "prudent" four year old. There is no such thing. There reason we don't generally let four year olds cross busy streets by themselves is because the lack the ability to make "prudent" judgments about their own safety - let alone the safety of someone else.
He says there is no evidence of the girl's "lack of maturity". A four year old! First of all, he is making this judgement based on HIS observations of a 6 year old. But still, we are judging the maturity of someone who believes in the Easter Bunny. He says there is nothing to "indicate that another child of similar age and capacity, under similar circumstances would not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman." Has this idiot ever met a four year old in person? How many schools, home owners, parks, businesses, parks, community centres have been sued because four, five and six year old injure themselves on playground equipment? Four year olds can't "reasonably" appreciate the danger of many things. They generally can't understand the implications of danger, unjury, risk, etc.
Reading comprehension and critical thinking 101. Just because there is an injury, it doesn't mean that someone else MUST be responsible. That doesn't mean that someone else CAN'T be responsible, only that an injury does not require a liable party.
If they (the estate) were suing the parents for being negligent in supervising the child, fine. Fill your boots. But they are suing a 4 year old. Without knowing the details of the case, I can only guess that under the circumstances it must be difficult to show negligence.
Also - just because there is an injury, doesn't mean someone else is liable. If she had been knocked over and injured by a gust of wind - would they sue the weather man?
If any sense of justice prevails, they will lose the case, and then on top of the medical bills, they will have legal bills (and if the judge determines that the suit was frivolous, the legal costs of the defendant as well). Besides, from a fiscal perspective, it is probably fortunate that the old lady died. It's cheaper to die than to linger in convalescence.
This is ridiculous. She is obviously suing the child because it would be hard to show negligence on the part of the parent.
IANAL, but I find It interesting that the judge uses the term "a reasonable child", because the legal standard is "a reasonable person". In most jurisdictions, children under 6 - 7 have no duty of care - an obligation to act with reasonable care in acts that could foreseeably harm others. Above this age, until the age of majority, they are judged by the standard of a "reasonable person of like age, intelligence, experience and under like circumstances".
A judge who believes a 4 year old can reasonably foresee when her actions could foreseeable harm others is a judge who has never spent any time with a 4 year old. Maybe he has heard about them, or seen one in pictures?
To be held responsible, at a minimum, a person first has to be self aware - able to recognize themselves as an individual and to learn, self reflect and make choices. This generally doesn't develop in children until sometime around age 2, but is not fully developed until somewhat later. Welcome to the "terrible twoes". The process of learning how to behave as an individual in a society only BEGINS with self awareness. To make responsible personal choices, a person also requires cultural, spacial and temporal awareness. That is, they need to be able to recognize the values of their society, have a sense of their physical environment (distance, speed, relationships between objects, possibly a concept of property, etc.) and they need to be able to reflect on past events, observe the current and foresee/predict cause and effect at it pertains to the immediate future. Many 4 year olds if given a choice of ice cream right now, or going to Disneyland next week, are going to choose ice cream because next week might as well be 10 years.
It would be unconscionable (unreasonable) to ask a 4 year old to cross a busy street on her own. She lacks the ability to judge distance, time, speed, inertia, force, etc. as they pertains to her own safety. How could you possibly expect a 4 year old to make the same judgments in the context of another person's safety? And even if the girl made the careless choice to risk hitting the old lady, is she able to recognize the difference between running into a 12 year old, a tree, a moving car or an 87 year old lady? Each has different implications. A four year old is simply not capable of recognizing these implications and making reasonable choices.
It's highly unlikely that Google made this mistake; they were well aware of the legal ramifications. Google set out to do a clean room implementation of Java (at least the JME VM) knowing that if they messed it up, it would be extremely costly. I don't know how Google did it, but generally when you do a clean room implementation, it means you have two development teams - one that has access to the original code/documentation and basically writes the specs, and another team that has no access to the original code or documentation, and writes the "clean room" code based on these specs developed by the first team. In that scenario, everyone is aware of the implications of cut and paste, so it is unlikely.
That's the whole point. There is nothing in an HTTP request that infers a contract. The proper response is a 401 (Unauthorized), 402 (Payment Required) or 403 (Forbidden) code - you don't just serve up the page and then sue.
That's the point - there is nothing in an HTTP request that infers a contract - if you (HTTP Request) ask for something you are not entitled to, the proper response is a 401 (Unauthorized), 402 (Payment Required) or 403 (Forbidden) code. You don't just serve up the page and then sue.
It looks like she is also back dating her posts. The blog entry for the "ASCPA cracks down on cat cruelty" entry is dated Sunday October 24, but the original article on the ASPCA website has an Tues Oct 26 dateline.
Lucy Van Pelt is sitting at her lemonade (and advice) stand, on the public sidewalk, with a sign that says Lemonade for sale - subscription required.
You walk up and ask for a free glass of lemonade. (GET/stand/lemonade.html HTTP/1.1)
Lucy gives you a lemonade. (HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed 27 October 2010 18:24:11 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.4 (Unix)....)
You drink the lemonade and walk away. She says nothing. No price is ever mentioned in the exchange.
A week later she sues.
Further, it turns out that to make the lemonade, she has taken lemons from her neighbour's tree, used the fountain in the public park for water and taken sugar packets from the hotdog stand to sweeten it.
The Internet is public, so It's more like the grocery store owner throws all of his produce out on the sidewalk and then puts up a sign that says "free fruits and vegetables - please take only one!"
The OEMs are not the only source of Android hardware ports. There is a very active community of users building images for a wide variety of phone. The third party / community builds are usually available long before the official OEM supported upgrades because they don't have to worry about supporting "Sense" or "Motoblurr" or what have you.
My phone came with Android 2.1, but my carrier (Rogers) disabled Google Navigation so that they could sell their own navigation app. So I rooted the phone and re-flashed it with a community 2.1 image. A couple of months later I upgraded to Froyo - and got a huge bump in performance, battery life and some added functionality.
The minimum CPU speed is now apparently 1Ghz. That means most of the top end phones available today will "minimally" run gingerbread (although there is a big difference in benchmark performance between the 1GHz Snapdragon based Androids and the 1GHz Hummingbird based Androids).
This would seem to indicate that Gingerbread really is targeted to tablets.
So - is Honeycomb going to require a 2GHz CPU? Will there be a version targeted to smartphones (lower CPU specs)? For most people, a mobile phone has a 2 or 3 year life cycle. I would hate to have shelled out for a brand new Samsung Galaxy S or Droid Pro just to find out that the next OS update won't be supported.
Yes - in the same way that GCC is a tool for programmers who are too lazy to write their own compiler.
One off re-implementations of commonly used tools is a waste of programming time in most organizations. Why would anyone write a content management system (CMS) from scratch? A web site is a communications tool for organizations. It is not reasonable that everyone in an organization who needs to communicate with the public (or internally on an Intranet) be a programmer or have their content implemented by a programmer (who in most cases is unskilled in the art/science of communication).
A CMS is a tool, that depending on how well it is implemented, attempts to break content creation, design/presentation and information taxonomy/structure/layout into separate roles and skill sets so that those skilled in those particular disciplines can focus on their own domain and maximize efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently he started posting on /. the same year.
If you had meant "the common law standard in NY" you should have said so. When you use the definite article without any qualifications such as "in the state of NY", you are in fact saying the, one and only standard.
Even if you had meant "the common law standard applied in the state of NY", I fail to see how that in any way rebutts, my saying that in most jurisdictions children under a certain age (6 or 7) are not held to this standard.
As to why I would be criticize a NY judge for applying NY law in this case, to quote Charles Dickens, "If the law supposes that [a child of 4 1/2 years is capable of exercising the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, experience and prudence, required by the reasonable man/person standard] then the law is an ass. If that's the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience".
When you say "THE" common law standard you infer that there is only one when in fact there are at least three.
In some jurisdictions, a child of "tender years" is a person "of such immature years as to be incapable of exercising the judgement, intelligence, knowledge, experience and prudence demanded by the standard of the reasonable man and as a result of youth lack the capacity to know or realize the danger". Jurisdictions that employ this approach often set age limits on child liabilty, 6 or 7 years of age is common place.
Similiarly, in other jurisdictions, children under the age of 7, as a matter or law, are conclusively presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence and children aged 7 to 14 are presumed to be incapable of negligence.
Still other jurisdiction reject hard age limits on child liability. Unless the child is so young that no reasonable person could find them capable, the question of capability is left to the jury (with appropriate instruction on the standard of care).
It appears that NY uses the third approach, but it does not appear there is one, universal standard on child liability, and in fact, as I stated, in most jurisdictions, children under age 6 or 7 are not deemed capable of negligence.
The judge uses language which clearly indicates he is clueless to the nature of a child. He talks about a "prudent" four year old. There is no such thing. There reason we don't generally let four year olds cross busy streets by themselves is because the lack the ability to make "prudent" judgments about their own safety - let alone the safety of someone else.
He says there is no evidence of the girl's "lack of maturity". A four year old! First of all, he is making this judgement based on HIS observations of a 6 year old. But still, we are judging the maturity of someone who believes in the Easter Bunny. He says there is nothing to "indicate that another child of similar age and capacity, under similar circumstances would not have reasonably appreciated the danger of riding a bicycle into an elderly woman." Has this idiot ever met a four year old in person? How many schools, home owners, parks, businesses, parks, community centres have been sued because four, five and six year old injure themselves on playground equipment? Four year olds can't "reasonably" appreciate the danger of many things. They generally can't understand the implications of danger, unjury, risk, etc.
I guess 4 year olds can also post on /.
Reading comprehension and critical thinking 101. Just because there is an injury, it doesn't mean that someone else MUST be responsible. That doesn't mean that someone else CAN'T be responsible, only that an injury does not require a liable party.
Bravo - good for you.
If they (the estate) were suing the parents for being negligent in supervising the child, fine. Fill your boots. But they are suing a 4 year old. Without knowing the details of the case, I can only guess that under the circumstances it must be difficult to show negligence.
Also - just because there is an injury, doesn't mean someone else is liable. If she had been knocked over and injured by a gust of wind - would they sue the weather man?
If any sense of justice prevails, they will lose the case, and then on top of the medical bills, they will have legal bills (and if the judge determines that the suit was frivolous, the legal costs of the defendant as well). Besides, from a fiscal perspective, it is probably fortunate that the old lady died. It's cheaper to die than to linger in convalescence.
This is ridiculous. She is obviously suing the child because it would be hard to show negligence on the part of the parent.
IANAL, but I find It interesting that the judge uses the term "a reasonable child", because the legal standard is "a reasonable person". In most jurisdictions, children under 6 - 7 have no duty of care - an obligation to act with reasonable care in acts that could foreseeably harm others. Above this age, until the age of majority, they are judged by the standard of a "reasonable person of like age, intelligence, experience and under like circumstances".
A judge who believes a 4 year old can reasonably foresee when her actions could foreseeable harm others is a judge who has never spent any time with a 4 year old. Maybe he has heard about them, or seen one in pictures?
To be held responsible, at a minimum, a person first has to be self aware - able to recognize themselves as an individual and to learn, self reflect and make choices. This generally doesn't develop in children until sometime around age 2, but is not fully developed until somewhat later. Welcome to the "terrible twoes". The process of learning how to behave as an individual in a society only BEGINS with self awareness. To make responsible personal choices, a person also requires cultural, spacial and temporal awareness. That is, they need to be able to recognize the values of their society, have a sense of their physical environment (distance, speed, relationships between objects, possibly a concept of property, etc.) and they need to be able to reflect on past events, observe the current and foresee/predict cause and effect at it pertains to the immediate future. Many 4 year olds if given a choice of ice cream right now, or going to Disneyland next week, are going to choose ice cream because next week might as well be 10 years.
It would be unconscionable (unreasonable) to ask a 4 year old to cross a busy street on her own. She lacks the ability to judge distance, time, speed, inertia, force, etc. as they pertains to her own safety. How could you possibly expect a 4 year old to make the same judgments in the context of another person's safety? And even if the girl made the careless choice to risk hitting the old lady, is she able to recognize the difference between running into a 12 year old, a tree, a moving car or an 87 year old lady? Each has different implications. A four year old is simply not capable of recognizing these implications and making reasonable choices.
Employ a 12 year old to penetration test your security. Type really fast
Ever seen anyone talking into their own hearing aid?
Why not, she's got 3000 "anytime" minutes.
It's highly unlikely that Google made this mistake; they were well aware of the legal ramifications. Google set out to do a clean room implementation of Java (at least the JME VM) knowing that if they messed it up, it would be extremely costly. I don't know how Google did it, but generally when you do a clean room implementation, it means you have two development teams - one that has access to the original code/documentation and basically writes the specs, and another team that has no access to the original code or documentation, and writes the "clean room" code based on these specs developed by the first team. In that scenario, everyone is aware of the implications of cut and paste, so it is unlikely.
That's the whole point. There is nothing in an HTTP request that infers a contract. The proper response is a 401 (Unauthorized), 402 (Payment Required) or 403 (Forbidden) code - you don't just serve up the page and then sue.
That's the point - there is nothing in an HTTP request that infers a contract - if you (HTTP Request) ask for something you are not entitled to, the proper response is a 401 (Unauthorized), 402 (Payment Required) or 403 (Forbidden) code. You don't just serve up the page and then sue.
SCO already tried that.
I'm going to send them an invoice for 10 cents for each pixel on my screen they have consumed.
It looks like she is also back dating her posts. The blog entry for the "ASCPA cracks down on cat cruelty" entry is dated Sunday October 24, but the original article on the ASPCA website has an Tues Oct 26 dateline.
Lucy Van Pelt is sitting at her lemonade (and advice) stand, on the public sidewalk, with a sign that says Lemonade for sale - subscription required.
/stand/lemonade.html HTTP/1.1)
....)
You walk up and ask for a free glass of lemonade. (GET
Lucy gives you a lemonade. (HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed 27 October 2010 18:24:11 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.4 (Unix)
You drink the lemonade and walk away. She says nothing. No price is ever mentioned in the exchange.
A week later she sues.
Further, it turns out that to make the lemonade, she has taken lemons from her neighbour's tree, used the fountain in the public park for water and taken sugar packets from the hotdog stand to sweeten it.
Does Lucy prevail?
Maybe a better solution to declining readership would be current content. They have a permanent link to articles on the Terri Shiavo Case!
The Internet is public, so It's more like the grocery store owner throws all of his produce out on the sidewalk and then puts up a sign that says "free fruits and vegetables - please take only one!"
The OEMs are not the only source of Android hardware ports. There is a very active community of users building images for a wide variety of phone. The third party / community builds are usually available long before the official OEM supported upgrades because they don't have to worry about supporting "Sense" or "Motoblurr" or what have you.
My phone came with Android 2.1, but my carrier (Rogers) disabled Google Navigation so that they could sell their own navigation app. So I rooted the phone and re-flashed it with a community 2.1 image. A couple of months later I upgraded to Froyo - and got a huge bump in performance, battery life and some added functionality.
The minimum CPU speed is now apparently 1Ghz. That means most of the top end phones available today will "minimally" run gingerbread (although there is a big difference in benchmark performance between the 1GHz Snapdragon based Androids and the 1GHz Hummingbird based Androids).
This would seem to indicate that Gingerbread really is targeted to tablets.
So - is Honeycomb going to require a 2GHz CPU? Will there be a version targeted to smartphones (lower CPU specs)? For most people, a mobile phone has a 2 or 3 year life cycle. I would hate to have shelled out for a brand new Samsung Galaxy S or Droid Pro just to find out that the next OS update won't be supported.
Have they got a date SP-2 ??
I doubt suppressing the splash screen actually makes the application load any faster.
Yes - in the same way that GCC is a tool for programmers who are too lazy to write their own compiler.
One off re-implementations of commonly used tools is a waste of programming time in most organizations. Why would anyone write a content management system (CMS) from scratch? A web site is a communications tool for organizations. It is not reasonable that everyone in an organization who needs to communicate with the public (or internally on an Intranet) be a programmer or have their content implemented by a programmer (who in most cases is unskilled in the art/science of communication).
A CMS is a tool, that depending on how well it is implemented, attempts to break content creation, design/presentation and information taxonomy/structure/layout into separate roles and skill sets so that those skilled in those particular disciplines can focus on their own domain and maximize efficiency.