Failure to comply with the GPL is a violation of the license contract that it is, and you can sue for damages under breach of contract. Failure to accept the GPL in the first place and then using the software without a license would probably constitute a copyright violation.
No way! A successful venture capitalist has lots of money. Graham didn't, and started up a company that got bought out by Yahoo for some decent chunk of change. I am thinking of the right guy, am I not?
Even the cheap production is no help if nobody watches the shows. A truly popular show will pull in millions per commercial break, so whether the episode cost $10,000 or $5,000,000 to produce, if nobody at all watches the $10,000 show and the $5,000,000 show gets 50 million viewers, the more expensive show will actually be more profitable.
The problem here is socio-economic. Somehow, you have something like an inverse elasticity - if you decrease the quality of the product without altering the price, you get more sales.
I wonder how this works for Microsoft. I know ME was a failed experiment in the same thing, but the price-to-value ratio for their products has gone down even with XP because, although the value has gone up, the price seems to have gone up more. (Compare XP Home to 98.)
Can you think of any other markets where a decrease in quality with no corresponding decrease in price will result in higher sales? Women's shoes and purses don't count, because women are not rational actors.;)
Dude, it's only a $64,000 question if you don't give the answer right away like that. And yes, reality TV is the replacement. Why? Because 90% of the people who watch 90% of the TV in this country honestly enjoy that crap. The people who don't watch reality TV often have better things to do, like live their own damn lives instead of living vicariously through complete idiots who think survival has the first thing to do with voting someone off the island.
If you want to have a "reality TV" show called "Survivor," you had better have all the contestants but one die, and you'd better not help them out at all. Just videotape what happens when you drop 16 people off with no supplies but the shirts on their backs and whatever they had in their pockets at an undisclosed location with no civilization for at least 100 miles in any direction. I suggest Siberia. (And yes, this is a show I'd gladly compete on as well as watch.)
But none of the TV addicts would watch that, because it doesn't involve sex, immunity challenges, or deciding who "survives" based on popularity.
ATMs located at the bank are usually restocked by tellers, particularly in lower-crime areas. Same for simple maintenance tasks. It's just the sensible thing to do.
Regarding the speed, are you sure they expected 285mph or was it 285 knots? Also, was that expected airspeed or ground speed? FWIW, 285kts = 328mph, and even if they expected 285mph, ground speed is higher than indicated airspeed at altitude (although I don't know how high they were flying, I remember reading it was fairly high up).
I would be scared if [judges had the power to overturn acquittals], though.
And that's why we have the 6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
Meta-moderation is just a horrible idea as it is. Since you probably can't metamoderate yourself, and since metamoderation is easier to get access to than mod points, it follows that the people doing the metamoderating are the people with the shittiest quality of input the userbase has to offer.
"Most pathetic"... I can't agree. Maybe "most pathetic since noon" or "most pathetic Firefox blurb since January," but not most pathetic overall. It's a matter of relativity in a field with a great number of samples in the lower regions, so you have to differentiate between degrees of "holy shit WTF were they thinking?"
The important thing to understand is that courts make two types of findings: those of fact and those of law. The line can get blurry (for instance, courts might rule that 6-year-old kids are not negligent as a matter of law) but, in general, you have a fact-finder and you have a judge. In a bench trial, the judge acts as the fact-finder. In jury trials, the jury plays that role.
Appellate judges normally only rule on errors of law made by the lower courts. For example, if the trial judge totally botches the jury instructions or leaves out an element of the crime, appellate review will fix that. Appellate judges can only overturn findings of fact, including convictions as far as I know, when the findings were clearly erroneous. For instance, if absolutely no evidence whatsoever, direct or circumstantial, is entered into the record and the jury finds you guilty, that's a clearly erroneous finding and the judge would be correct to throw the verdict out. Note that, in criminal cases as has been mentioned in other comments in this thread, the judge cannot unilaterally reverse an acquittal. Nor can the government (prosecution) normally appeal from an acquittal. Double-jeopardy and all that.
Interesting note: you can be prosecuted for the same crime more than once if it's in different courts. The Supreme Court ruled last year, in a case my dad's friend's son argued, that an Indian (feathers, not dots) tribal court prosecuting an Indian from another tribe under authority to do so granted it by the US Congress is not acting as part of the US federal court system and therefore the same defendant can be prosecuted for the same crime in a US District Court. (The crime in that case was assaulting a police officer, for anyone who's that interested.)
(OT but helpful...) The best way out of jury duty is as follows... When they ask you questions, answer them all with references to the death penalty and how much you think the guy should get it. This is particularly effective in civil cases and is even better when the parties are all corporations instead of natural persons.
It's a lot more than pageant. The justices cannot ask you questions when you are filing briefs. You just hope that you cover every question they might want to ask. Oral argument is where the justices fill in the blanks by asking you questions that they wish they could have while reading your brief. That's a very important part of the process.
Oral argument is not boring at all. It's one of the most exciting pursuits in the law. And it's not worthless - it will not usually help you predict how a justice will rule on a case, but it gives you insight into how he thinks about the case; and insight into how a Supreme Court justice thinks is more valuable than either outcome of this particular case.
But yeah, I'd definitely try to get there early. Leaving early enough to miss Richmonad and NoVa traffic, I'm only a couple hours from DC and could leave here around 4:00 no problem. It's a question of motivation.
The problem is that someone made an off-topic, inflammatory, trolling, and utterly fallacious post that got modded up more than once, and then this entire thread came about from people trying to choke it to death, and in so doing generated all the insightful, informative, and interesting comments that it has. The "off-topic" mod, when applied 3 or more times to one comment, should probably delete the comment and all its replies. That would save a lot of the hassle here.;)
A full-term baby would die without extraordinary assistance. So would most 4-year-olds. And, by law, the same applies to everyone under 18 years old, unless they've legally emancipated themselves.
So, by your logic, if late-term abortion is legal, then so is post-term abortion up through the age of 17.
Defining life in a medical way is the key, here. Common law homicide required that the victim have been "born alive," basically requiring that the baby be born and take at least one breath before you can be guilty of killing it. Obviously, statutes have moved that back a bit to cover things like the Peterson case.
There are two reasons why abortion is still fully legal. First off, only a minority of us are willing to define life factually rather than legally, and say that a fetus which, if born prematurely, stands a really good chance of survival, is alive and one that doesn't stand that chance is not; or to define it in terms of brain activity, the same way as we now define death ("brain death" is the term). Second, as Scalia puts it: "It thus appears the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe v. Wade, must be disassembled doorjamb by doorjamb..." There are a hell of a lot of doorjambs in that mansion.
For a big case, it's a good idea to be prepared to start lining up the night before.
There are two possible responses to this. The first is to ask which is nerdier: camping in line to get into the Supreme Court or doing so to get into Star Wars III.
The second is more to the point: "And give up my place in line for Revenge of the Sith? NEVER!"
The difference is that I can't take Crim Law next semester (you take each class once and that's it; even if you get an F, you take your F and try to keep your GPA up notwithstanding it), but I will be able to read the oral argument transcripts probably within a month and will be probably be able to listen to the recording from oyez.org as well (I'm assuming they'll make this one available).
What you're missing in that is that executing a minor for murder is not the same as killing an unborn child because you don't want the child. There is an enormous distinction there, and the distinction is essentially that you are, in one case, killing someone for his own crimes, while in the other you are killing someone for the crimes of someone else (particularly in the case of late-term abortion of pregnancy caused by rape).
This is a civil matter, and is not as explicitly provided for in the Constitution as is the right to keep and bear arms. The main question here is whether MGM can sue Grokster for contributory copyright infringement. Note that the NRA aims to achieve its goals by legislative lobbying rather than amicus briefs to the Supreme Court - the gunmakers immunity bill of last year that they supported, for example, would have prevented you from suing Glock if someone shot you with a Glock. The NRA is better at throwing money at a problem than they are considering anything but their one-track understanding of what constitutes a "problem."
On a side note, the problem I had with that bill was that the courts should be making that distinction on their own, and the bill itself could have led to you being unable to sue Glock if you were shooting one and it exploded in your face. I am not an NRA fanboy, but I support many of the things they do nonetheless. This is just not their area of expertise.
Read the rest of this thread. You are in the wrong on the actual holding in that case, and you are furthermore employing nothing but logical fallacies combined with an utter lack of understanding of US law to make a point that is entirely invalid. I'm through conversing with you on the topic, but this needed to be pointed out.
No, this was a recent decision. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional (having not read the opinion, I am assuming on "cruel and unusual punishment" grounds, although there may be other reasons) to execute people who were under 18 at the time they committed the crime for which they were convicted and sentenced to execution. The decision was 5-4, whence the 44% bit. But the root comment appeals to emotion and non sequitur reasoning, as well as a misunderstanding of the ruling itself.
Oral arguments in this case will be held March 29. I am strongly considering making the trip up to DC for this one, especially since it's on a day when I only have one class and, frankly, MGM v. Grokster is slightly more interesting than Criminal Law. But my newfound loyalty to class attendance (compare to my undergraduate days, when I actually had a class that I only went to for exams and to get the syllabus the first day (I got a B)) will probably trump any desire to hear what the Supreme Court justices have to say on the matter in their colloquy with counsel.
Slashdot Mirror
Failure to comply with the GPL is a violation of the license contract that it is, and you can sue for damages under breach of contract. Failure to accept the GPL in the first place and then using the software without a license would probably constitute a copyright violation.
No way! A successful venture capitalist has lots of money. Graham didn't, and started up a company that got bought out by Yahoo for some decent chunk of change. I am thinking of the right guy, am I not?
Even the cheap production is no help if nobody watches the shows. A truly popular show will pull in millions per commercial break, so whether the episode cost $10,000 or $5,000,000 to produce, if nobody at all watches the $10,000 show and the $5,000,000 show gets 50 million viewers, the more expensive show will actually be more profitable.
;)
The problem here is socio-economic. Somehow, you have something like an inverse elasticity - if you decrease the quality of the product without altering the price, you get more sales.
I wonder how this works for Microsoft. I know ME was a failed experiment in the same thing, but the price-to-value ratio for their products has gone down even with XP because, although the value has gone up, the price seems to have gone up more. (Compare XP Home to 98.)
Can you think of any other markets where a decrease in quality with no corresponding decrease in price will result in higher sales? Women's shoes and purses don't count, because women are not rational actors.
I thought sci-fi and reality were mutually exclusive. Then again, reality TV has as much to do with reality as does sci-fi, so ... *shudder*.
Q: what's replacing Sci-Fi?
A: reality TV
Dude, it's only a $64,000 question if you don't give the answer right away like that. And yes, reality TV is the replacement. Why? Because 90% of the people who watch 90% of the TV in this country honestly enjoy that crap. The people who don't watch reality TV often have better things to do, like live their own damn lives instead of living vicariously through complete idiots who think survival has the first thing to do with voting someone off the island.
If you want to have a "reality TV" show called "Survivor," you had better have all the contestants but one die, and you'd better not help them out at all. Just videotape what happens when you drop 16 people off with no supplies but the shirts on their backs and whatever they had in their pockets at an undisclosed location with no civilization for at least 100 miles in any direction. I suggest Siberia. (And yes, this is a show I'd gladly compete on as well as watch.)
But none of the TV addicts would watch that, because it doesn't involve sex, immunity challenges, or deciding who "survives" based on popularity.
ATMs located at the bank are usually restocked by tellers, particularly in lower-crime areas. Same for simple maintenance tasks. It's just the sensible thing to do.
So you're saying that OpenBSD isn't dead, but that it will probably not procreate after it becomes legal for it to marry a same-sex operating system?
I said across her nose, not up it!
Regarding the speed, are you sure they expected 285mph or was it 285 knots? Also, was that expected airspeed or ground speed? FWIW, 285kts = 328mph, and even if they expected 285mph, ground speed is higher than indicated airspeed at altitude (although I don't know how high they were flying, I remember reading it was fairly high up).
So what all did he get to fly over on this trip?
I would be scared if [judges had the power to overturn acquittals], though.
..."
And that's why we have the 6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed
Meta-moderation is just a horrible idea as it is. Since you probably can't metamoderate yourself, and since metamoderation is easier to get access to than mod points, it follows that the people doing the metamoderating are the people with the shittiest quality of input the userbase has to offer.
"Most pathetic" ... I can't agree. Maybe "most pathetic since noon" or "most pathetic Firefox blurb since January," but not most pathetic overall. It's a matter of relativity in a field with a great number of samples in the lower regions, so you have to differentiate between degrees of "holy shit WTF were they thinking?"
The important thing to understand is that courts make two types of findings: those of fact and those of law. The line can get blurry (for instance, courts might rule that 6-year-old kids are not negligent as a matter of law) but, in general, you have a fact-finder and you have a judge. In a bench trial, the judge acts as the fact-finder. In jury trials, the jury plays that role.
Appellate judges normally only rule on errors of law made by the lower courts. For example, if the trial judge totally botches the jury instructions or leaves out an element of the crime, appellate review will fix that. Appellate judges can only overturn findings of fact, including convictions as far as I know, when the findings were clearly erroneous. For instance, if absolutely no evidence whatsoever, direct or circumstantial, is entered into the record and the jury finds you guilty, that's a clearly erroneous finding and the judge would be correct to throw the verdict out. Note that, in criminal cases as has been mentioned in other comments in this thread, the judge cannot unilaterally reverse an acquittal. Nor can the government (prosecution) normally appeal from an acquittal. Double-jeopardy and all that.
Interesting note: you can be prosecuted for the same crime more than once if it's in different courts. The Supreme Court ruled last year, in a case my dad's friend's son argued, that an Indian (feathers, not dots) tribal court prosecuting an Indian from another tribe under authority to do so granted it by the US Congress is not acting as part of the US federal court system and therefore the same defendant can be prosecuted for the same crime in a US District Court. (The crime in that case was assaulting a police officer, for anyone who's that interested.)
(OT but helpful...) The best way out of jury duty is as follows... When they ask you questions, answer them all with references to the death penalty and how much you think the guy should get it. This is particularly effective in civil cases and is even better when the parties are all corporations instead of natural persons.
It's a lot more than pageant. The justices cannot ask you questions when you are filing briefs. You just hope that you cover every question they might want to ask. Oral argument is where the justices fill in the blanks by asking you questions that they wish they could have while reading your brief. That's a very important part of the process.
Oral argument is not boring at all. It's one of the most exciting pursuits in the law. And it's not worthless - it will not usually help you predict how a justice will rule on a case, but it gives you insight into how he thinks about the case; and insight into how a Supreme Court justice thinks is more valuable than either outcome of this particular case.
But yeah, I'd definitely try to get there early. Leaving early enough to miss Richmonad and NoVa traffic, I'm only a couple hours from DC and could leave here around 4:00 no problem. It's a question of motivation.
The problem is that someone made an off-topic, inflammatory, trolling, and utterly fallacious post that got modded up more than once, and then this entire thread came about from people trying to choke it to death, and in so doing generated all the insightful, informative, and interesting comments that it has. The "off-topic" mod, when applied 3 or more times to one comment, should probably delete the comment and all its replies. That would save a lot of the hassle here. ;)
A full-term baby would die without extraordinary assistance. So would most 4-year-olds. And, by law, the same applies to everyone under 18 years old, unless they've legally emancipated themselves.
So, by your logic, if late-term abortion is legal, then so is post-term abortion up through the age of 17.
Defining life in a medical way is the key, here. Common law homicide required that the victim have been "born alive," basically requiring that the baby be born and take at least one breath before you can be guilty of killing it. Obviously, statutes have moved that back a bit to cover things like the Peterson case.
There are two reasons why abortion is still fully legal. First off, only a minority of us are willing to define life factually rather than legally, and say that a fetus which, if born prematurely, stands a really good chance of survival, is alive and one that doesn't stand that chance is not; or to define it in terms of brain activity, the same way as we now define death ("brain death" is the term). Second, as Scalia puts it: "It thus appears the mansion of constitutionalized abortion law, constructed overnight in Roe v. Wade, must be disassembled doorjamb by doorjamb..." There are a hell of a lot of doorjambs in that mansion.
For a big case, it's a good idea to be prepared to start lining up the night before.
There are two possible responses to this. The first is to ask which is nerdier: camping in line to get into the Supreme Court or doing so to get into Star Wars III.
The second is more to the point: "And give up my place in line for Revenge of the Sith? NEVER!"
The difference is that I can't take Crim Law next semester (you take each class once and that's it; even if you get an F, you take your F and try to keep your GPA up notwithstanding it), but I will be able to read the oral argument transcripts probably within a month and will be probably be able to listen to the recording from oyez.org as well (I'm assuming they'll make this one available).
It's either OK to take a life or it isn't.
What you're missing in that is that executing a minor for murder is not the same as killing an unborn child because you don't want the child. There is an enormous distinction there, and the distinction is essentially that you are, in one case, killing someone for his own crimes, while in the other you are killing someone for the crimes of someone else (particularly in the case of late-term abortion of pregnancy caused by rape).
This is a civil matter, and is not as explicitly provided for in the Constitution as is the right to keep and bear arms. The main question here is whether MGM can sue Grokster for contributory copyright infringement. Note that the NRA aims to achieve its goals by legislative lobbying rather than amicus briefs to the Supreme Court - the gunmakers immunity bill of last year that they supported, for example, would have prevented you from suing Glock if someone shot you with a Glock. The NRA is better at throwing money at a problem than they are considering anything but their one-track understanding of what constitutes a "problem."
On a side note, the problem I had with that bill was that the courts should be making that distinction on their own, and the bill itself could have led to you being unable to sue Glock if you were shooting one and it exploded in your face. I am not an NRA fanboy, but I support many of the things they do nonetheless. This is just not their area of expertise.
Read the rest of this thread. You are in the wrong on the actual holding in that case, and you are furthermore employing nothing but logical fallacies combined with an utter lack of understanding of US law to make a point that is entirely invalid. I'm through conversing with you on the topic, but this needed to be pointed out.
No, this was a recent decision. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional (having not read the opinion, I am assuming on "cruel and unusual punishment" grounds, although there may be other reasons) to execute people who were under 18 at the time they committed the crime for which they were convicted and sentenced to execution. The decision was 5-4, whence the 44% bit. But the root comment appeals to emotion and non sequitur reasoning, as well as a misunderstanding of the ruling itself.
Oral arguments in this case will be held March 29. I am strongly considering making the trip up to DC for this one, especially since it's on a day when I only have one class and, frankly, MGM v. Grokster is slightly more interesting than Criminal Law. But my newfound loyalty to class attendance (compare to my undergraduate days, when I actually had a class that I only went to for exams and to get the syllabus the first day (I got a B)) will probably trump any desire to hear what the Supreme Court justices have to say on the matter in their colloquy with counsel.
Is anyone in the DC area going to go?