Netflix has upgraded to MS Silverlight which works on Firefox as well as IE. You have to upgrade to use Silverlight, though. Perhaps you are still using the old player.
Microsoft apparently doesn't believe Windows 7 is vulnerable:
Microsoft Security Advisory (975497): Vulnerabilities in SMB Could Allow Remote Code Execution (09/08/09)
"Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are not affected by this vulnerability"
In addition, most users won't be vulnerable as Vista marks networks as "Public" by default, blocking file sharing:
"In Windows Vista, if the network profile is set to "Public", the system is not affected by this vulnerability, since unsolicited inbound network packets are blocked by default.
Sigh... wrong... did you even read the article you linked too?
PAE is supported only on 32-bit versions of the Windows operating system; 64-bit versions of Windows do not support PAE. For information about device driver and system requirements for 64-bit versions of Windows, see 64-bit System Design. The Address Windowing Extension (AWE) API is supported on 32-bit systems. It is also supported on x64 systems for both native and Wow64 applications. Although support for PAE memory is typically associated with support for more than 4 GB of RAM, PAE can be enabled on Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003, and later 32-bit versions of Windows to support hardware-enforced Data Execution Prevention (DEP).
There is no PAE in 64 bit versions because it has no purpose
PAE will allow a single process to address more than 4GB of memory using AWE. Again, read the page you linked too.
I'm not sure what you think our disagreement is based on. I clearly stated that PAE was only necessary for a 32 bit OS, and that a 64 bit OS has no need for such a hack. See below.
"Now that 64 bit drivers can be had for pretty much all modern hardware, there is no reason to use a hack like PAE to support more than 4 GB of RAM."
I RTFA and I have to say, I think the author is attempting to find a conspiracy where none exists. If the author had searched MS's website for information on PAE, he would have soon learned why MS decided to remove PAE, and thus support for more than 4 GB of physical memory, from XP SP2.
Why this is a non-story:
1) MS removed PAE in XP SP2 because of incompatibility with 32 bit drivers and resulting instability issues.
XP did support PAE before SP2. However, Microsoft received complaints from users regarding compatibility and instability issues resulting from the use of 3rd party 32 bit drivers. Many users were getting BSODs. It was only then that MS chose to remove PAE from XP SP2.
This decision makes quite a bit of sense. Manufacturers were unlikely to update drivers to include PAE support because, at the time, 4GB+ of memory was very uncommon, and relegated to power users who had a specific need for large amounts of RAM. The situation has since changed due to the plummeting cost of RAM, Vista's need for greater memory resources, more demanding applications, and Superfetch, which allows users to make use of idle memory to preload commonly used applications. My own experiences on Vista x64 show that programs start up significantly faster than in XP due with Superfetch enabled.
Now that 64 bit drivers can be had for pretty much all modern hardware, there is no reason to use a hack like PAE to support more than 4 GB of RAM. Most machines sold by Dell, HP etc. now include 64 bit Vista if the machine has 4 GB of RAM, which is now becoming standard.
See below for MS's explanation of the removal of PAE from SP2.
Driver Issues
Typically, device drivers must be modified in a number of small ways. Although the actual code changes may be small, they can be difficult. This is because when not using PAE memory addressing, it is possible for a device driver to assume that physical addresses and 32-bit virtual address limits are identical. PAE memory makes this assumption untrue.
Several assumptions and shortcuts that could previously be used safely do not apply. In general, these fall in to three categories:
Buffer alignment in code that allocates and aligns shared memory buffers must be modified so that it does not ignore the upper 32 bits of the physical address.
Truncation of addresses information in the many locations this might be kept must be avoided.
It is necessary to strictly segregate virtual and physical address references so DMA operations do not transfer information to or from random memory locations.
PAE mode can be enabled on Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1 and later versions of Windows to support hardware-enforced DEP. However, many device drivers designed for these systems may not have been tested on system configurations with PAE enabled. In order to limit the impact to device driver compatibility, changes to the hardware abstraction layer (HAL) were made to Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 Standard Edition to limit physical address space to 4 GB. Driver developers are encouraged to read about DEP.
2. Windows isn't trying to screw users over by purchasing a higher priced 64 bit version. Any retail version of Vista or Windows 7 comes with both the 32 and 64 bit installers. As others have mentioned, it's also possible to activate 64 bit Windows with a 32 bit OEM key.
3. PAE will not allow a single process to use more than 4 GB of RAM so a true 64 bit OS is still superior for programs that need large amounts of memory such as HD Video editing, editing of large images in Photoshop etc.
BTW, phrases such as "matter of law" are terms of art, and the usage is often different from that of lay English (say, that you would find in a standard dictionary). While the definition can sometimes be derived from the word alone, it's best to look it up in a dedicated law dictionary such as Black's Law Dictionary.
There are many issues which courts have deemed to be "matters of law" that are clearly factual in nature. It's a policy determination - and thus the distinction can not always be derived from logic alone.
An issue can be decided as a matter of "law" or "fact". If it a factual matter, than the final arbiter will be the factfinder which is usually a jury, but can be a judge, in a bench trial. However, some issues are considered to be so obvious, or of a public policy or legal nature, such that Congress or the appellate courts have deemed it appropriate to leave the decision up to the judge, rather than the factfinder (jury).
This is a very important distinction. First, if an issue is a matter of law, an appellate court can decide the issue "de novo" - meaning that they consider the issue anew, and are not bound by the decision of the lower court. In contrast, appellate courts are required to respect the factual determinations as the factfinder is deemed to have superior information - the ability to view the witnesses' testimony and ascertain its credibility rather than reading a written transcript, for example.
So, to apply the standard to this case. If the factfinder at the trial level found that the service was interactive, the appellate court would have no obligation to respect that determination if it was a question of law, however if it was a question of fact, than the factual determination must be respected unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or is clearly erroneous.
Louisiana was not one of the original thirteen colonies which became the United States in 1789. Louisiana, in fact, only became a territory in 1803 and a state in 1812, well after the formation of the United States.
So, yes, I was correct to state that the "United States as a whole incorporated the common law of England up to that point" as the point I was referring to - the creation of the United States as an independent nation - occurred before Louisiana was either a US Territory or a US State.
FYI, the original thirteen colonies are: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island
"Note that I have quoted the common law elements of burglary. Many state statutes have altered the elements to, for example, remove the requirement that the break-in occur at night."
Isn't reading fun? I already provided the disclaimer, so your post is pointless. I referred to the common-law definition to get the point across that "breaking" and "entering" are merely two of the elements to establish burglary. That is true, both under the common-law and state statutes. Also, there are states that still require the night element.
Should I have provided the burglary statutes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, even though it would have served no purpose?
It seems that an increasingly large percentage of Slashdot posts contain no informational value and merely seek to be clever or sarcastic, and often fail at even that minor goal. If you have nothing valuable to add, why post?
Oh, and I mentioned that I was a student at YLS as I think it provides some basis that I'm not talking out of my ass. However, if you don't trust me, feel free to look up the applicable common-law or statutes yourself on Westlaw, LexisNexis etc.
That wouldn't be a crime. With few exceptions, referred to as "strict liability" offenses (statutory rape is an example), a criminal conviction requires a showing of actus reus (that the defendant has committed the illegal act) AND mens rea (that the act was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly). The mens rea standard depends on the crime. For example, to prove murder a state must establish that an individual knowingly or intentionally killed the victim, and in some states, also must show premeditation. However, a showing that the defendant recklessly disregarded the risk of harm to the victim would be sufficient to prove manslaughter or aggravated assault.
So, in your hypothetical, you haven't actually violated any law because you don't have the requisite mens rea. I am not aware of any strict liability computer offenses. Therefore, you would have had to at least act recklessly when you accessed the "jasonmc" network. As the mistake was an easy one to make, it would not meet that standard. It may be negligent - but negligence is a lower standard, and generally insufficient to establish criminal liability.
In addition, if the offense required you to obtain unauthorized access for the purpose of committing a crime (stealing data, damaging the network etc.), the prosecutor would be unable to prove the actus reus as well.
Both the common law of the United States and that of Australia are derived from English common law. In fact, when the United States became an independent nation, we incorporated all of the common law of England up to that point. As burglary is a very old offense, which can be traced back hundreds of years if not more, there is likely to be a great deal of similarity between the common law of Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom with regard to the definition of burglary.
However, I still don't see the point of these pedantic comments. I thought it was obvious from my post that I was referring to the common-law definition of burglary in the United States. If I was at all unclear, my later post should have removed all doubt as I stated explicitly that the post referred to the law of the United States, not Australia.
Obviously I was referring to the United States, but you are correct in your implication that I should have been more clear especially on a site as pedantic as Slashdot.
To elaborate on the parent post, "breaking and entering" is often referred to as a synonym for burglary, whereas it is in fact merely two of the elements to establish burglary. Under the common law, the following elements must be met to establish burglary:
1) Breaking (The use of force, however slight, to facilitate entry - may include pushing open a door, opening a window etc.)
2) Entering (Literally entering the physical structure)
3) The home of another (Note that breaking into a commercial building would not constitute burglary. The property must have the primary use as a residence.)
4) At Night (Variously defined - usually from sunset to sunrise, but could be what a "reasonable" person would believe to be night)
5) With the Intent to Commit a Felony (Usually larceny, but can be any felony including violent crimes)
Note that I have quoted the common law elements of burglary. Many state statutes have altered the elements to, for example, remove the requirement that the break-in occur at night.
You're absolutely right and I fully support Lawrence v. Texas for that reason. Sodomy laws were unconstitutional and served no legitimate purpose.
You are right that these laws can be enforced; my only point is that they tend not to be because even the police and prosecution don't have much of an interest in enforcing such laws, and such acts tend to be fairly difficult to detect. While we are willing to expend resources to catch child pornographers, I doubt the public would look kindly on the use of similar resources to prosecute individuals for private sexual conduct between consenting adults.
That's likely because the Supreme Court overturned all sodomy laws on the grounds that they violated the privacy right of consenting adults to engage in sexual acts in the privacy of their home. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558(2003).
However, even when these laws were on the books, they were never really enforced vigorously. The prior Supreme Court case on point was Bowers v. Hardwick (a case upholding laws against homosexual sodomy - overturned by Lawrence), and in that case Texas never sought to criminally prosecute the appellant.
Even if a state wanted to vigorously prosecute these laws, how would they go about doing so? If the act is between two consent adults in the privacy of their home, who is going to report the offense?
You're assuming Blu-Ray disks will continue to have only one or two layers. However, 8 and 16 layer disks have been produced, and would be readable by any current Blu-Ray player with a firmware update.
Pioneer produced a 16 layer, 400 GB disk a few months ago, and they're attempting to produce a 1 TB disk by 2013.
Also, I dispute your claim that there is not much difference between 480p and 1080p video. The detail level on some Blu-Ray's is simply staggering (e.g. Dark Knight, Planet Earth, Lost S04). Differences are especially apparent on animated content where production is all digital. For example, Wall-E and Ratatouille look amazing.
It is far superior in color reproduction, vibrancy, and detail than DVD. There's also the benefit of lossless audio. Most Blu-Rays now come with lossless 24/48 khz tracks 5.1 or 7.1 tracks. This is significantly superior to the 448 kbit Dolby Digital tracks provided on most DVDs.
Source: Wikipedia
"In December 2008, Pioneer Corporation unveiled a 400 GB Blu-ray disc, which contains 16 data layers, 25 GB each, and will be compatible with current players after a firmware update. A planned launch is in the 2009-2010 time frame for ROM and 2010-2013 for rewritable discs. Ongoing development is under way to create a 1 TB Blu-ray disc as soon as 2013.[92]."
Read the EULA of the next software product you buy. You will almost certainly see in the biolerplate language which informs you of your right to return the software if you do not accept the license terms.
You may not be able to return the software to the retailer, but the manufacturer (maker of the software/hardware) will allow returns if you reject the EULA/license, and in fact is required to do so, if they want their EULA/license to be enforceable.
There are several cases on point that prove that such EULAs do not pose any legal difficulty. See Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding Gateway shrinkwrap license enforceable). In that case, Hill purchased a Gateway computer and later sued for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the UCC. His warranty cliams were explicitly barred by the "shrinkwrap" license agreement that he accepted when he first turned on the computer. However, Hill challenged the license - arguing as you have - that it's unreasonable to provide the terms of a license only after the software/hardware has been used. Easterbrook, writing for the court, held that because the license gave him the option of returning the computer within 30 days to the manufacturer (not retailer) as a means of rejecting the EULA, acceptance of the computer constituted acceptance of the license terms.
See also ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding shrinkwrap license enforceable).
UCC 2-204 allows contracts to be made "in any manner sufficient to show agreement" including "conduct".
Thus, the fact that you did not return the program within a reasonable period operates as powerful evidence that you accepted the EULA.
In fact, there is an exception to the statute of frauds (requirement of a signed writing for contracts for sale of goods more than $500 under UCC) where the goods have been accepted.
A EULA governs the sale of software, which is considered a "good" under UCC Article 2 (Uniform Commercial Code). The UCC has been adopted in every state, in slightly modified forms. The UCC allows an authorized agent to contract on behalf of the principle, and in fact allows "electronic agents" to bind the principle. If a computer can act as your authorized agent, surely an animal can.
This does not pose significant difficulties for contract law. It's just stupid. But don't bother with the legal answer - considering idle speculation. It's more fun anyway. I'm sure the guy who developed this device didn't bother to research the law first (clearly).
Posted while waiting for my prof to arrive in Commercial Transactions.:)
I state that at the end of my post. It was the parent poster that said damages would be based upon contract price - next best price. I stated that the damages are based on the buyer's expectation interest - the goal being to put him in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed.
Almost certainly not. The theory you're asserting is Reliance (See Restatement Second of Contracts Sec. 90). Reliance only applies if the purchaser acts in good faith and reasonably relies upon the promise. Here, there would almost certainly be no reasonable basis for reliance. Almost anyone would recognize that a $27 price for a Plasma TV is a misprint being that the market price generally is in the thousands of dollars. Note also that "reasonableness" is an objective standard. Even if you acted in good faith and really did believe that the price was $27, you didn't reasonably rely.
Furthermore, Amazon says they will notify you of their cancellation but they don't say when they'll do so. Normally this means that the cancellation must be communicated within a "reasonable" period of time. The fact that Amazon doesn't charge your credit card until the item is ready to ship also would make your case weaker. IF you were relying on the Plasma screens, and you hadn't gotten a confirmation that your credit card had been billed or that the order had been shipped, the reasonable response would probably be to contact Amazon and confirm the order.
In addition, the damages you're asserting are based on unique special circumstance which was never communicated to Amazon. Such damages are termed "consequential damages" and a) either can't be obtained unless Amazon had reason to know of your special situation, or b) such damages are barred by a limitation of liability or limitation of damages clause in the contract. Almost every company uses limitations of liability/damages clauses so you would not be able to collect consequential damages.
Well, you're jumping to conclusions. The fact that there was a breach of contract doesn't mean that the buyer can recover for the contract price - the next best available price. You point out that once there has been an offer and acceptance, a binding contract is created and Amazon is unable to repudiate. While that is true, the contract clearly allowed Amazon to cancel a buyer's order if the price was set incorrectly which certainly was the case here. Thus, Amazon was justified in its cancellation of the buyers' orders. If there was a breach, it was only the failure to notify the buyer of the order cancellation. I'm not sure from the contract terms whether a court would find there was a breach. The terms may be read as suggesting Amazon's current policy of notification rather than binding themselves to do so. In any event, a buyer would not be able to recover for the contract price - the best available price because that does not reflect the damages actually suffered. The buyer's expectation damages ought to put him in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed. Since Amazon's only failure was to notify him of the order cancellation, damages should be assessed based on the harm which resulted from lack of notification. In addition, it seems pretty clear in context that when UCC 2-711 speaks of the sellers failure to make delivery, it's referring to an unjustified refusal, rather than a justified refusal combined with a relatively minor breach. In the instant case, a court would likely award nominal damages due to the lack of any clear harm to the buyer.
Furthermore, the measure of damages had there been an unjustified refusal to make delivery would be based on the difference between the market price of the good at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price (2-713) or in the alternative, the buyer could "cover" by buying the item at another retailer and sue for the difference between the contract price and the purchase price of the replacement (2-712). Cover doesn't even require that the price be the "next best price" - only that it is made in good faith and without unreasonable delay. This may very well exceed the market price if the buyer wants the item immediately and is willing to pay a higher price for the convenience of a local retailer.
The fact that you or I might want to survive, and want the same for our offspring and family doesn't make it an objectively "good" thing. Good is defined by reference to the actor doing the valuation. Since humans are the actors in this case, it makes sense that they would define their survival as "good", while not giving the same weight to the survival of other species. If we looked to the good of the ecosystem for example, the extinction of the human race might serve to allow for greater bio-diversity and it certainly would slow the destruction of the environment. The extinction of a particular species may not be particularly relevant to the our lives, as humans, and it also may not have a harmful effect on the environment. There is no objective good to the continued existence of any species, including humans.
Oh, and I just downloaded a DVD9 sized HD movie in less than 2 hours on a private bittorrent tracker. Speeds on public torrents may be crap, but at least the good private torrent sites provide pretty incredible speeds. 20 mbit/sec downloads aren't uncommon for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Netflix has upgraded to MS Silverlight which works on Firefox as well as IE. You have to upgrade to use Silverlight, though. Perhaps you are still using the old player.
Microsoft apparently doesn't believe Windows 7 is vulnerable:
Microsoft Security Advisory (975497): Vulnerabilities in SMB Could Allow Remote Code Execution (09/08/09)
"Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are not affected by this vulnerability"
In addition, most users won't be vulnerable as Vista marks networks as "Public" by default, blocking file sharing:
"In Windows Vista, if the network profile is set to "Public", the system is not affected by this vulnerability, since unsolicited inbound network packets are blocked by default.
Source: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/975497.mspx
Sigh ... wrong ... did you even read the article you linked too?
PAE is supported only on 32-bit versions of the Windows operating system; 64-bit versions of Windows do not support PAE. For information about device driver and system requirements for 64-bit versions of Windows, see 64-bit System Design. The Address Windowing Extension (AWE) API is supported on 32-bit systems. It is also supported on x64 systems for both native and Wow64 applications.
Although support for PAE memory is typically associated with support for more than 4 GB of RAM, PAE can be enabled on Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003, and later 32-bit versions of Windows to support hardware-enforced Data Execution Prevention (DEP).
There is no PAE in 64 bit versions because it has no purpose
PAE will allow a single process to address more than 4GB of memory using AWE. Again, read the page you linked too.
I'm not sure what you think our disagreement is based on. I clearly stated that PAE was only necessary for a 32 bit OS, and that a 64 bit OS has no need for such a hack. See below.
"Now that 64 bit drivers can be had for pretty much all modern hardware, there is no reason to use a hack like PAE to support more than 4 GB of RAM."
I'll defer to you on AWE.
I RTFA and I have to say, I think the author is attempting to find a conspiracy where none exists. If the author had searched MS's website for information on PAE, he would have soon learned why MS decided to remove PAE, and thus support for more than 4 GB of physical memory, from XP SP2.
Why this is a non-story:
1) MS removed PAE in XP SP2 because of incompatibility with 32 bit drivers and resulting instability issues.
XP did support PAE before SP2. However, Microsoft received complaints from users regarding compatibility and instability issues resulting from the use of 3rd party 32 bit drivers. Many users were getting BSODs. It was only then that MS chose to remove PAE from XP SP2.
This decision makes quite a bit of sense. Manufacturers were unlikely to update drivers to include PAE support because, at the time, 4GB+ of memory was very uncommon, and relegated to power users who had a specific need for large amounts of RAM. The situation has since changed due to the plummeting cost of RAM, Vista's need for greater memory resources, more demanding applications, and Superfetch, which allows users to make use of idle memory to preload commonly used applications. My own experiences on Vista x64 show that programs start up significantly faster than in XP due with Superfetch enabled.
Now that 64 bit drivers can be had for pretty much all modern hardware, there is no reason to use a hack like PAE to support more than 4 GB of RAM. Most machines sold by Dell, HP etc. now include 64 bit Vista if the machine has 4 GB of RAM, which is now becoming standard.
See below for MS's explanation of the removal of PAE from SP2.
Source: MS Website, "Operating Systems and PAE Support", June 14 2006 - http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx
Driver Issues Typically, device drivers must be modified in a number of small ways. Although the actual code changes may be small, they can be difficult. This is because when not using PAE memory addressing, it is possible for a device driver to assume that physical addresses and 32-bit virtual address limits are identical. PAE memory makes this assumption untrue.
Several assumptions and shortcuts that could previously be used safely do not apply. In general, these fall in to three categories:
Buffer alignment in code that allocates and aligns shared memory buffers must be modified so that it does not ignore the upper 32 bits of the physical address. Truncation of addresses information in the many locations this might be kept must be avoided. It is necessary to strictly segregate virtual and physical address references so DMA operations do not transfer information to or from random memory locations.
PAE mode can be enabled on Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1 and later versions of Windows to support hardware-enforced DEP. However, many device drivers designed for these systems may not have been tested on system configurations with PAE enabled. In order to limit the impact to device driver compatibility, changes to the hardware abstraction layer (HAL) were made to Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 Standard Edition to limit physical address space to 4 GB. Driver developers are encouraged to read about DEP.
2. Windows isn't trying to screw users over by purchasing a higher priced 64 bit version. Any retail version of Vista or Windows 7 comes with both the 32 and 64 bit installers. As others have mentioned, it's also possible to activate 64 bit Windows with a 32 bit OEM key.
3. PAE will not allow a single process to use more than 4 GB of RAM so a true 64 bit OS is still superior for programs that need large amounts of memory such as HD Video editing, editing of large images in Photoshop etc.
BTW, phrases such as "matter of law" are terms of art, and the usage is often different from that of lay English (say, that you would find in a standard dictionary). While the definition can sometimes be derived from the word alone, it's best to look it up in a dedicated law dictionary such as Black's Law Dictionary. There are many issues which courts have deemed to be "matters of law" that are clearly factual in nature. It's a policy determination - and thus the distinction can not always be derived from logic alone.
An issue can be decided as a matter of "law" or "fact". If it a factual matter, than the final arbiter will be the factfinder which is usually a jury, but can be a judge, in a bench trial. However, some issues are considered to be so obvious, or of a public policy or legal nature, such that Congress or the appellate courts have deemed it appropriate to leave the decision up to the judge, rather than the factfinder (jury). This is a very important distinction. First, if an issue is a matter of law, an appellate court can decide the issue "de novo" - meaning that they consider the issue anew, and are not bound by the decision of the lower court. In contrast, appellate courts are required to respect the factual determinations as the factfinder is deemed to have superior information - the ability to view the witnesses' testimony and ascertain its credibility rather than reading a written transcript, for example. So, to apply the standard to this case. If the factfinder at the trial level found that the service was interactive, the appellate court would have no obligation to respect that determination if it was a question of law, however if it was a question of fact, than the factual determination must be respected unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion or is clearly erroneous.
Louisiana was not one of the original thirteen colonies which became the United States in 1789. Louisiana, in fact, only became a territory in 1803 and a state in 1812, well after the formation of the United States. So, yes, I was correct to state that the "United States as a whole incorporated the common law of England up to that point" as the point I was referring to - the creation of the United States as an independent nation - occurred before Louisiana was either a US Territory or a US State. FYI, the original thirteen colonies are: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island
"Note that I have quoted the common law elements of burglary. Many state statutes have altered the elements to, for example, remove the requirement that the break-in occur at night."
Isn't reading fun? I already provided the disclaimer, so your post is pointless. I referred to the common-law definition to get the point across that "breaking" and "entering" are merely two of the elements to establish burglary. That is true, both under the common-law and state statutes. Also, there are states that
still require the night element.
Should I have provided the burglary statutes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, even though it would have served no purpose?
It seems that an increasingly large percentage of Slashdot posts contain no informational value and merely seek to be clever or sarcastic, and often fail at even that minor goal. If you have nothing valuable to add, why post?
Oh, and I mentioned that I was a student at YLS as I think it provides some basis that I'm not talking out of my ass. However, if you don't trust me, feel free to look up the applicable common-law or statutes yourself on Westlaw, LexisNexis etc.
That wouldn't be a crime. With few exceptions, referred to as "strict liability" offenses (statutory rape is an example), a criminal conviction requires a showing of actus reus (that the defendant has committed the illegal act) AND mens rea (that the act was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly). The mens rea standard depends on the crime. For example, to prove murder a state must establish that an individual knowingly or intentionally killed the victim, and in some states, also must show premeditation. However, a showing that the defendant recklessly disregarded the risk of harm to the victim would be sufficient to prove manslaughter or aggravated assault.
So, in your hypothetical, you haven't actually violated any law because you don't have the requisite mens rea. I am not aware of any strict liability computer offenses. Therefore, you would have had to at least act recklessly when you accessed the "jasonmc" network. As the mistake was an easy one to make, it would not meet that standard. It may be negligent - but negligence is a lower standard, and generally insufficient to establish criminal liability.
In addition, if the offense required you to obtain unauthorized access for the purpose of committing a crime (stealing data, damaging the network etc.), the prosecutor would be unable to prove the actus reus as well.
Both the common law of the United States and that of Australia are derived from English common law. In fact, when the United States became an independent nation, we incorporated all of the common law of England up to that point. As burglary is a very old offense, which can be traced back hundreds of years if not more, there is likely to be a great deal of similarity between the common law of Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom with regard to the definition of burglary.
However, I still don't see the point of these pedantic comments. I thought it was obvious from my post that I was referring to the common-law definition of burglary in the United States. If I was at all unclear, my later post should have removed all doubt as I stated explicitly that the post referred to the law of the United States, not Australia.
Obviously I was referring to the United States, but you are correct in your implication that I should have been more clear especially on a site as pedantic as Slashdot.
To elaborate on the parent post, "breaking and entering" is often referred to as a synonym for burglary, whereas it is in fact merely two of the elements to establish burglary. Under the common law, the following elements must be met to establish burglary:
1) Breaking (The use of force, however slight, to facilitate entry - may include pushing open a door, opening a window etc.)
2) Entering (Literally entering the physical structure)
3) The home of another (Note that breaking into a commercial building would not constitute burglary. The property must have the primary use as a residence.)
4) At Night (Variously defined - usually from sunset to sunrise, but could be what a "reasonable" person would believe to be night)
5) With the Intent to Commit a Felony (Usually larceny, but can be any felony including violent crimes)
Note that I have quoted the common law elements of burglary. Many state statutes have altered the elements to, for example, remove the requirement that the break-in occur at night.
Jason
Yale Law School, Class of 2010
Rarely enforced laws are bad laws..
You're absolutely right and I fully support Lawrence v. Texas for that reason. Sodomy laws were unconstitutional and served no legitimate purpose.
You are right that these laws can be enforced; my only point is that they tend not to be because even the police and prosecution don't have much of an interest in enforcing such laws, and such acts tend to be fairly difficult to detect. While we are willing to expend resources to catch child pornographers, I doubt the public would look kindly on the use of similar resources to prosecute individuals for private sexual conduct between consenting adults.
That's likely because the Supreme Court overturned all sodomy laws on the grounds that they violated the privacy right of consenting adults to engage in sexual acts in the privacy of their home. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558(2003).
However, even when these laws were on the books, they were never really enforced vigorously. The prior Supreme Court case on point was Bowers v. Hardwick (a case upholding laws against homosexual sodomy - overturned by Lawrence), and in that case Texas never sought to criminally prosecute the appellant.
Even if a state wanted to vigorously prosecute these laws, how would they go about doing so? If the act is between two consent adults in the privacy of their home, who is going to report the offense?
The largest 2.5" HDDs are currently 500 GB, not 1TB. Did you mean 3.5" external?
The largest 3.5" HDDs are 2 TB, but I think the largest single-drive external is only 1 TB.
You're assuming Blu-Ray disks will continue to have only one or two layers. However, 8 and 16 layer disks have been produced, and would be readable by any current Blu-Ray player with a firmware update.
Pioneer produced a 16 layer, 400 GB disk a few months ago, and they're attempting to produce a 1 TB disk by 2013.
Also, I dispute your claim that there is not much difference between 480p and 1080p video. The detail level on some Blu-Ray's is simply staggering (e.g. Dark Knight, Planet Earth, Lost S04). Differences are especially apparent on animated content where production is all digital.
For example, Wall-E and Ratatouille look amazing.
It is far superior in color reproduction, vibrancy, and detail than DVD. There's also the benefit of lossless audio. Most Blu-Rays now come with lossless 24/48 khz tracks 5.1 or 7.1 tracks. This is significantly superior to the 448 kbit Dolby Digital tracks provided on most DVDs.
Source: Wikipedia
"In December 2008, Pioneer Corporation unveiled a 400 GB Blu-ray disc, which contains 16 data layers, 25 GB each, and will be compatible with current players after a firmware update. A planned launch is in the 2009-2010 time frame for ROM and 2010-2013 for rewritable discs. Ongoing development is under way to create a 1 TB Blu-ray disc as soon as 2013.[92]."
Read the EULA of the next software product you buy. You will almost certainly see in the biolerplate language which informs you of your right to return the software if you do not accept the license terms.
You may not be able to return the software to the retailer, but the manufacturer (maker of the software/hardware) will allow returns if you reject the EULA/license, and in fact is required to do so, if they want their EULA/license to be enforceable.
There are several cases on point that prove that such EULAs do not pose any legal difficulty. See Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding Gateway shrinkwrap license enforceable). In that case, Hill purchased a Gateway computer and later sued for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the UCC. His warranty cliams were explicitly barred by the "shrinkwrap" license agreement that he accepted when he first turned on the computer. However, Hill challenged the license - arguing as you have - that it's unreasonable to provide the terms of a license only after the software/hardware has been used. Easterbrook, writing for the court, held that because the license gave him the option of returning the computer within 30 days to the manufacturer (not retailer) as a means of rejecting the EULA, acceptance of the computer constituted acceptance of the license terms.
See also ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding shrinkwrap license enforceable).
Another obvious point:
UCC 2-204 allows contracts to be made "in any manner sufficient to show agreement" including "conduct".
Thus, the fact that you did not return the program within a reasonable period operates as powerful evidence that you accepted the EULA.
In fact, there is an exception to the statute of frauds (requirement of a signed writing for contracts for sale of goods more than $500 under UCC) where the goods have been accepted.
A EULA governs the sale of software, which is considered a "good" under UCC Article 2 (Uniform Commercial Code). The UCC has been adopted in every state, in slightly modified forms. The UCC allows an authorized agent to contract on behalf of the principle, and in fact allows "electronic agents" to bind the principle. If a computer can act as your authorized agent, surely an animal can.
This does not pose significant difficulties for contract law. It's just stupid. But don't bother with the legal answer - considering idle speculation. It's more fun anyway. I'm sure the guy who developed this device didn't bother to research the law first (clearly).
Posted while waiting for my prof to arrive in Commercial Transactions. :)
I state that at the end of my post. It was the parent poster that said damages would be based upon contract price - next best price. I stated that the damages are based on the buyer's expectation interest - the goal being to put him in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed.
Almost certainly not. The theory you're asserting is Reliance (See Restatement Second of Contracts Sec. 90). Reliance only applies if the purchaser acts in good faith and reasonably relies upon the promise. Here, there would almost certainly be no reasonable basis for reliance. Almost anyone would recognize that a $27 price for a Plasma TV is a misprint being that the market price generally is in the thousands of dollars. Note also that "reasonableness" is an objective standard. Even if you acted in good faith and really did believe that the price was $27, you didn't reasonably rely.
Furthermore, Amazon says they will notify you of their cancellation but they don't say when they'll do so. Normally this means that the cancellation must be communicated within a "reasonable" period of time. The fact that Amazon doesn't charge your credit card until the item is ready to ship also would make your case weaker. IF you were relying on the Plasma screens, and you hadn't gotten a confirmation that your credit card had been billed or that the order had been shipped, the reasonable response would probably be to contact Amazon and confirm the order.
In addition, the damages you're asserting are based on unique special circumstance which was never communicated to Amazon. Such damages are termed "consequential damages" and a) either can't be obtained unless Amazon had reason to know of your special situation, or b) such damages are barred by a limitation of liability or limitation of damages clause in the contract. Almost every company uses limitations of liability/damages clauses so you would not be able to collect consequential damages.
Well, you're jumping to conclusions. The fact that there was a breach of contract doesn't mean that the buyer can recover for the contract price - the next best available price. You point out that once there has been an offer and acceptance, a binding contract is created and Amazon is unable to repudiate. While that is true, the contract clearly allowed Amazon to cancel a buyer's order if the price was set incorrectly which certainly was the case here. Thus, Amazon was justified in its cancellation of the buyers' orders. If there was a breach, it was only the failure to notify the buyer of the order cancellation. I'm not sure from the contract terms whether a court would find there was a breach. The terms may be read as suggesting Amazon's current policy of notification rather than binding themselves to do so. In any event, a buyer would not be able to recover for the contract price - the best available price because that does not reflect the damages actually suffered. The buyer's expectation damages ought to put him in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed. Since Amazon's only failure was to notify him of the order cancellation, damages should be assessed based on the harm which resulted from lack of notification. In addition, it seems pretty clear in context that when UCC 2-711 speaks of the sellers failure to make delivery, it's referring to an unjustified refusal, rather than a justified refusal combined with a relatively minor breach. In the instant case, a court would likely award nominal damages due to the lack of any clear harm to the buyer.
Furthermore, the measure of damages had there been an unjustified refusal to make delivery would be based on the difference between the market price of the good at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price (2-713) or in the alternative, the buyer could "cover" by buying the item at another retailer and sue for the difference between the contract price and the purchase price of the replacement (2-712). Cover doesn't even require that the price be the "next best price" - only that it is made in good faith and without unreasonable delay. This may very well exceed the market price if the buyer wants the item immediately and is willing to pay a higher price for the convenience of a local retailer.
The fact that you or I might want to survive, and want the same for our offspring and family doesn't make it an objectively "good" thing. Good is defined by reference to the actor doing the valuation. Since humans are the actors in this case, it makes sense that they would define their survival as "good", while not giving the same weight to the survival of other species. If we looked to the good of the ecosystem for example, the extinction of the human race might serve to allow for greater bio-diversity and it certainly would slow the destruction of the environment. The extinction of a particular species may not be particularly relevant to the our lives, as humans, and it also may not have a harmful effect on the environment. There is no objective good to the continued existence of any species, including humans.
Oh, and I just downloaded a DVD9 sized HD movie in less than 2 hours on a private bittorrent tracker. Speeds on public torrents may be crap, but at least the good private torrent sites provide pretty incredible speeds. 20 mbit/sec downloads aren't uncommon for me.