So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision?
Because this is a US court regulating the acts of a US company[*] in similar ways that the US regulates the acts of its citizens in other countries. (Any US citizen wishing to dispute that claim may try to do so by travelling to Spain and having friendly sex with a 13 years old, which is legal under Spanish law.)
[*] According to Wikipedia: Motorola Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: MSI) is an American data communications and telecommunications equipment provider that succeeded Motorola Inc. following the spin-off of the mobile phones division into Motorola Mobility in 2011. The company is headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois, a Chicago suburb.
The DMCA is an awful piece of legislation, anyway. Too often has it been abused. It encourages the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that we've seen so much of. Great if you don't care about collateral damage! Awful otherwise.
The DMCA is a great piece of legislation, created by and for people[*] who "shoot first, ask questions later" and do care about collateral damage (maximizing it is their business model).
[*] In the broadest possible sense, see "corporate personhood".
And what about fake DMCA notices? Should those users be "policed," too?
While 100+ years is extremely absurd, I think 3 months is on the other end of extreme absurdity. I do believe the US founders had a pretty good concept of copyright limitations, and that should be something we return to. A maximum of 28 years, renewed at 14, seems like a fine separation of of concerns to allow an artist to recoup what they ca before it goes into the public domain.
I disagree.
In order to have a thriving culture, any culturally significant work must fall into the public domain during the generation that it has influenced.
So add it? That's kind of the whole point of OpenStreetMap. If you see a mistake in your neighborhood, YOU can go fix it and it shows up on the map immediately. Adding basic roads for a new subdivision can be done in a few minutes if you are familiar with the area.
So how is all this open content protected from vandalism?
Not all police are bad, it's just that 95% are giving the other 5% a bad name.
What do you base that on? Sure, it's a glib remark, but what are your experiences with the police? Every time I've encountered them, I've found them helpful, polite, and courteous. Maybe it's just my good fortune to always interact with the 5% though.
A bad cop can be courteous, polite, helpful, great with children, properly house-trained, etc. It's only in a situation where they can (illegally) abuse their authority for some personal benefit, cover for a fellow cop's transgressions and suchlike that you see their true nature.
Since all but the most egregious incidents of police abuse are "investigated" internally and end up with the perp getting a nice paid vacation following which the incident is quietly swept under the rug, I'd tend to see the 95% figure as the lower limit.
by winning it and costing them $170,000 the Boston police department did what they should have done in the first fucking place - the disciplined the officers involved.
You have several small inaccuracies in your post.
1) It cost the taxpayers $170,000. No one in the chain of responsibility will be out a single penny.
2) The "discipline" is most likely to be an "oral reprimand". Unless I misunderstood the term and the "oral" part refers to the officers being forced to fellate Mr. Glik, this is not much of a punishment.
From the article you linked to: Jordan [...] scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27 [...] The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
How exactly does "just a little above average" equate to "dumb as shit"?
The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred.
The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31 January 2006.
"According to the incident report, a teacher had been reading pornographic material from the Internet to the students in class. One of the stories was about prostitutes having their faces covered with ejaculation." -- http://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/142658256.html
Ah, but it does work! Ever heard of non-extradition countries? There are quite a few of them:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo (Kinshasa), Congo (Brazzaville), Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé & Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican, and Vietnam. Also note that Taiwan is one for now but the US is currently talking to them about it.
From this list, please name the countries you will be willing to immigrate to. (Bonus points if you're a non-Muslim female.)
Python's "duck-typing" can let you write one function where you would need to write several in C or C++. As a contrived example:
def add5(x):
return float(x) + 5.0
It doesn't matter what you pass to this function, as long as it can be converted to a float. In C++ you would have to write multiple versions of this with different type signatures.
arrest someone who did nothing wrong (like Professor Gates)
You mean the same Professor Gates who refused to provide ID in order to prove that the house they were "breaking into" was their own? Does that mean if I were to break into your house, and the cops showed up because a concerned neighbor had called 911 because they suspected someone was breaking into your house, and the cops asked for ID to prove that I lived there, and I refused, you would prefer the cops to just go on their merry way?
If the cop thought that Gates was a burglar, he'd have arrested him for "breaking and entering". The fact that he was arrested for "disorderly conduct" makes it clear that Gates' identity was satisfactorily proven.
IAAL in fact I'm a DA. So let me give you some perspective from the other side. If a prosecutor is doing his/her job then if they don't believe someone committed a crime or even if they don't believe there is a likelihood of conviction then they must dismiss the case.
... or if that "someone" is a cop.... or if they are just well connected.
Because as a prosecutor you have the ultimate discretion on whether to proceed
Ah, the wonderful world of selective prosecution, where everybody is equal under the law but not under its application.
Your right to a speedy trial only kicks in when the prosecution isn't ready, generally speaking. There's nothing that can be done if the Court isn't ready or isn't able to handle the case load.
A right is a right regardless of excuses to the contrary. Which means that, for all practical purposes, you don't have a right for a speedy trial in the US.
Compare that to the situation in Canada: - delays owing to inadequate institutional resources weigh against the Crown - the burden to justify such a delay falls upon the Crown - in determining whether such a delay is reasonable, the jurisdiction in question may be compared to others in the country, using obtaining conditions in better, not worse, districts as a standard of comparison
And on top of that, good luck getting the circuit judge to rule in favor of your motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial - the appeals court won't help you, either.
Ah, I see. You have rights, you just cannot exercise them. Nice system.
And speaking of unfair prejudice, what about prejudice to the State and the victims?
Spoken like a true assistant prosecutor.
Rights are for people, not governments. The "prejudice to the State" is a fiction, brought by people like you to justify robbing people of their rights.
Victims generally get tired of waiting around for justice... They move on, they get over it, and in some cases, they even DIE. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten a victim who has told me, "I don't care anymore, just get rid of it." That's not fair to the victim or the State
The victim should NEVER be a part of the equation. This is about justice, not revenge. Restitution to the victims is handled by other mechanisms (civil lawsuits).
(but it's sure as hell beneficial for the defendant, who has been out on bond for 2 years waiting for his trial).
As it should be. A defendant is innocent until proven guilty, a pesky detail that you prosecutors (assistants or otherwise) tend to ignore in your personal quest for glory.
You, sir, are not only a part of the problem. you ARE the problem.
Also - I agree that coercing defendants to settle does happen -- in criminal and civil cases -- but the dockets of courts around the country are already filled -- so sure, we can "break" the system -- but unless you're willing to fight for another century to rebuild the entire judiciary -- its pointless. The reality is, trials are expensive, they suck, depending on the jurisdiction -- you may already be screwed (so settlement is your BEST option), and most people don't have the wherewithal or resources to carry a case through to final judgment.
I have no idea what the answer is -- as I see it, there is no fix or magic bullet...but, demonizing settlement of cases, or plea bargains -- is not the answer. And nor is forcing a trial on someone who will most likely be indebted for the rest of their lives paying legal and court fees -- there is no justice in that -- and in many cases -- it is a worse fate than would have come out of settling.
Actually, there is a "fix or magic bullet". A pretty simple one in fact.
I live in Ontario. We have a public health care system, private medicine is only allowed (in the province) for what the public health care does not cover, thus no competition between the public and private systems and no "brain drain".
Take this system and model the justice system after it. Provide public defence attorneys to EVERYONE, regardless of income. Require the lawyers to participate as a condition to retain their license.
Presto, equal access to justice.
Of course, this will never happen because the legislators are predominantly lawyers and want to protect the privileged status of their class.
Slashdot Mirror
So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision?
Because this is a US court regulating the acts of a US company[*] in similar ways that the US regulates the acts of its citizens in other countries.
(Any US citizen wishing to dispute that claim may try to do so by travelling to Spain and having friendly sex with a 13 years old, which is legal under Spanish law.)
[*] According to Wikipedia: Motorola Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: MSI) is an American data communications and telecommunications equipment provider that succeeded Motorola Inc. following the spin-off of the mobile phones division into Motorola Mobility in 2011. The company is headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois, a Chicago suburb.
Well, it used to be 13, so 10 years is a good negotiation point.
No.
Zero is a good negotiation point.
The DMCA is an awful piece of legislation, anyway. Too often has it been abused. It encourages the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that we've seen so much of. Great if you don't care about collateral damage! Awful otherwise.
The DMCA is a great piece of legislation, created by and for people[*] who "shoot first, ask questions later" and do care about collateral damage (maximizing it is their business model).
[*] In the broadest possible sense, see "corporate personhood".
And what about fake DMCA notices? Should those users be "policed," too?
Somebody is not paying attention.
While 100+ years is extremely absurd, I think 3 months is on the other end of extreme absurdity. I do believe the US founders had a pretty good concept of copyright limitations, and that should be something we return to. A maximum of 28 years, renewed at 14, seems like a fine separation of of concerns to allow an artist to recoup what they ca before it goes into the public domain.
I disagree.
In order to have a thriving culture, any culturally significant work must fall into the public domain during the generation that it has influenced.
It is very rare for people who commit serious [emphasis mine] crimes to get off.
That's because they are rarely (if ever) charged.
So add it? That's kind of the whole point of OpenStreetMap. If you see a mistake in your neighborhood, YOU can go fix it and it shows up on the map immediately. Adding basic roads for a new subdivision can be done in a few minutes if you are familiar with the area.
So how is all this open content protected from vandalism?
Not all police are bad, it's just that 95% are giving the other 5% a bad name.
What do you base that on? Sure, it's a glib remark, but what are your experiences with the police? Every time I've encountered them, I've found them helpful, polite, and courteous. Maybe it's just my good fortune to always interact with the 5% though.
A bad cop can be courteous, polite, helpful, great with children, properly house-trained, etc.
It's only in a situation where they can (illegally) abuse their authority for some personal benefit, cover for a fellow cop's transgressions and suchlike that you see their true nature.
Since all but the most egregious incidents of police abuse are "investigated" internally and end up with the perp getting a nice paid vacation following which the incident is quietly swept under the rug, I'd tend to see the 95% figure as the lower limit.
Thanks but I'd prefer Android.
Are there any good phones with a real physical 5-row QWERTY slider keyboard anymore?
If you do this, I won't buy it. Lots of people won't.
>95% of their customers won't care.
Why is it that our asinine politicians in both parties have no respect for the Constitution anymore?
Because violating it carries no personal consequences.
Equate constitutional violations to treason and you'll see how fast things change.
Or maybe he wanted to offer you a position of a rabbi?
by winning it and costing them $170,000 the Boston police department did what they should have done in the first fucking place - the disciplined the officers involved.
You have several small inaccuracies in your post.
1) It cost the taxpayers $170,000. No one in the chain of responsibility will be out a single penny.
2) The "discipline" is most likely to be an "oral reprimand". Unless I misunderstood the term and the "oral" part refers to the officers being forced to fellate Mr. Glik, this is not much of a punishment.
Not just that, cops are dumb as shit thugs to start with.
From the article you linked to:
Jordan [...] scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27 [...]
The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
How exactly does "just a little above average" equate to "dumb as shit"?
Leviticus 18:22
Who did they play against?
Romans 1:27
Now, that's a crushing defeat.
Those Romans should be kicked out of the league!
I'm confused.
According to Wikipedia:
The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred.
The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31 January 2006.
What am I missing here?
Does it have a cheap plastic imitation of the Amulet of Yendor? I'm not interested if it doesn't have a cheap plastic imitation Amulet.
Greetings to a fellow CoCo-nut, you just killed my productivity for today.
Unlikely. Quebec was all over the NDP last election.
Unless they changed their minds since Jack's gone.
Voters are fickle. Layton was very charismatic, Montreal-born and fluently bilingual, I believe that that counted more than his political stance.
"According to the incident report, a teacher had been reading pornographic material from the Internet to the students in class. One of the stories was about prostitutes having their faces covered with ejaculation."
-- http://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/142658256.html
Ah, but it does work! Ever heard of non-extradition countries? There are quite a few of them:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo (Kinshasa), Congo (Brazzaville), Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé & Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican, and Vietnam. Also note that Taiwan is one for now but the US is currently talking to them about it.
From this list, please name the countries you will be willing to immigrate to.
(Bonus points if you're a non-Muslim female.)
Python's "duck-typing" can let you write one function where you would need to write several in C or C++. As a contrived example:
def add5(x):
return float(x) + 5.0
It doesn't matter what you pass to this function, as long as it can be converted to a float. In C++ you would have to write multiple versions of this with different type signatures.
What's wrong with:
template<typename T>
float add5(T x) { return float(x) + 5.0; }
arrest someone who did nothing wrong (like Professor Gates)
You mean the same Professor Gates who refused to provide ID in order to prove that the house they were "breaking into" was their own? Does that mean if I were to break into your house, and the cops showed up because a concerned neighbor had called 911 because they suspected someone was breaking into your house, and the cops asked for ID to prove that I lived there, and I refused, you would prefer the cops to just go on their merry way?
If the cop thought that Gates was a burglar, he'd have arrested him for "breaking and entering".
The fact that he was arrested for "disorderly conduct" makes it clear that Gates' identity was satisfactorily proven.
IAAL in fact I'm a DA. So let me give you some perspective from the other side. If a prosecutor is doing his/her job then if they don't believe someone committed a crime or even if they don't believe there is a likelihood of conviction then they must dismiss the case.
... or if that "someone" is a cop. ... or if they are just well connected.
Because as a prosecutor you have the ultimate discretion on whether to proceed
Ah, the wonderful world of selective prosecution, where everybody is equal under the law but not under its application.
Your right to a speedy trial only kicks in when the prosecution isn't ready, generally speaking. There's nothing that can be done if the Court isn't ready or isn't able to handle the case load.
A right is a right regardless of excuses to the contrary. Which means that, for all practical purposes, you don't have a right for a speedy trial in the US.
Compare that to the situation in Canada:
- delays owing to inadequate institutional resources weigh against the Crown
- the burden to justify such a delay falls upon the Crown
- in determining whether such a delay is reasonable, the jurisdiction in question may be compared to others in the country, using obtaining conditions in better, not worse, districts as a standard of comparison
And on top of that, good luck getting the circuit judge to rule in favor of your motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial - the appeals court won't help you, either.
Ah, I see. You have rights, you just cannot exercise them.
Nice system.
And speaking of unfair prejudice, what about prejudice to the State and the victims?
Spoken like a true assistant prosecutor.
Rights are for people, not governments. The "prejudice to the State" is a fiction, brought by people like you to justify robbing people of their rights.
Victims generally get tired of waiting around for justice... They move on, they get over it, and in some cases, they even DIE. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten a victim who has told me, "I don't care anymore, just get rid of it." That's not fair to the victim or the State
The victim should NEVER be a part of the equation. This is about justice, not revenge.
Restitution to the victims is handled by other mechanisms (civil lawsuits).
(but it's sure as hell beneficial for the defendant, who has been out on bond for 2 years waiting for his trial).
As it should be. A defendant is innocent until proven guilty, a pesky detail that you prosecutors (assistants or otherwise) tend to ignore in your personal quest for glory.
You, sir, are not only a part of the problem. you ARE the problem.
Also - I agree that coercing defendants to settle does happen -- in criminal and civil cases -- but the dockets of courts around the country are already filled -- so sure, we can "break" the system -- but unless you're willing to fight for another century to rebuild the entire judiciary -- its pointless. The reality is, trials are expensive, they suck, depending on the jurisdiction -- you may already be screwed (so settlement is your BEST option), and most people don't have the wherewithal or resources to carry a case through to final judgment.
I have no idea what the answer is -- as I see it, there is no fix or magic bullet...but, demonizing settlement of cases, or plea bargains -- is not the answer. And nor is forcing a trial on someone who will most likely be indebted for the rest of their lives paying legal and court fees -- there is no justice in that -- and in many cases -- it is a worse fate than would have come out of settling.
Actually, there is a "fix or magic bullet". A pretty simple one in fact.
I live in Ontario. We have a public health care system, private medicine is only allowed (in the province) for what the public health care does not cover, thus no competition between the public and private systems and no "brain drain".
Take this system and model the justice system after it. Provide public defence attorneys to EVERYONE, regardless of income. Require the lawyers to participate as a condition to retain their license.
Presto, equal access to justice.
Of course, this will never happen because the legislators are predominantly lawyers and want to protect the privileged status of their class.