Bear in mind the guy in the link in the RTFA was on a highway that came from basically nowhere but Mexico, and told the Border Patrol that he was coming from Mexico. I agree that "the authorities'" taking more liberties with (from) us is nauseating, but the example is not the kind of one to turn into a court test case. Coming back to San Antonio from Nuevo Laredo in 1975 I also encountered a border patrol agent about twenty minutes back into the US, so there has for some time been a "second line of defense" as a matter of course. However, I was not asked to open my trunk, and so did not have to deal with the suspicion that might have come from refusing, as the guy in the story thought he had to do "on principle" because he was a member of the ACLU. (It appears the story is based on an ACLU video.)
Enthusiastically endorsed by Oprah.
Not to seem too cynical, but don't celebrity endorsements generally vary directly with the size of the kickback, er, honorarium?
Actually, I've thought of a device that I'm hoping to build one of these days. It asks all callers for a three-digit password (which you've given to everyone you want to have it). Persons not having the three-digit code go straight to voicemail without ringing your phone, where you may listen to them... someday. Five minutes a couple of times a week reviewing these voicemails isn't too bad.
If plaintiffs were to succeed in an appeal after the termination of the first trial, unlikely as that may be, a new trial could have to happen. To prevent that possibility an Appeals Court might agree to rule now.
...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.
Unfortunately the RIAA do set forth a cognizable rationale for a new trial. It may be that a judge who has set aside a jury verdict won't want to take the rap for a wasteful second trial stemming from that decision, and will let the Appeals Court rule.
Now, I'm not predicting the Appeals Court is going to reverse his setting the verdict aside, but we may very well see them taking up the issue.
So the big question, as far as I can see, is whether the show will be merely supported by ads, perhaps pre- and post-, or if it will be interrupted by non-skippable ads, which will be a thorough dealbreaker.
Hate replying to my myself, but went to find one of these full-length Trek episodes, clicked on it: "This video is not available in your country". So much for that.
Cuz if you step on the wrong agency's documents.....Even crabs wouldn't scavenge upon you after that
This kind of comment used to be a joke-- now, in the present US, it sounds like prophecy.
God, people, just think of the damage wrought in the last eight years.
Just have a look at intrade.com. You can buy shares on the probability of Obama vs. McCain winning. The contracts on Obama now are statospheric. Want the best barometer? It is how people bet their money!
Why not just randomly vary the number and identity of click-through pages to register? In other words to solve a CAPTCHA you must handle an unexpected number of preliminary pages. Bots = confused.
As a MA attorney let me tell you this would be a case I wouldn't hesitate to take on, even if for an individual and not a class. Ch. 93A defines a "deceptive act or practice" broadly and if you win, the defendant (Wal-Mart) pays your legal fees.
In fact, since this is not the same as the boilerplate legal case that RIAA makes against thousands of consumers annually, it probably also consumed more resources.
The form of action would be for "Disparagement in a trade or profession". However allegations in legal pleadings are exempt from the rules of slander and libel. Otherwise you'd get sued and bankrupted for trying to prove a case that proved to be unprovable-- and the law does not trouble itself to chill or limit your allegations of wrongdoing by the wrongdoer. Just as in a lawsuit you get to have your day in court, in a legal pleading, you get to have your say. If your opponent doesn't like what you said on the public record, he can move to have your pleading impounded.
That's just the way we do it.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Guess what national company beginning with "g" and ending with "e" (no, it's not Gillette) makes virtually all of its money from advertising?
Now, as Chrome is open source, we can expect third-party adblock plugins pronto (tomorrow would not surprise me), but from Google? Best Homey D. Clown voice, now: "I Don't Think So."
One of PsyStar's claims is Restraint of Trade. It is easy to see how that would apply if Apple merely had sole control of the distribution channel for a certain title of software, but where *Apple is the creator / author* of the software I think we have a different situation. The creator / author, it would seem, can create and sell only as many copies as it wishes, and in fact can probably sell only to those it wishes to sell to. PsyStar (regrettably) is going to lose big here, but maybe not before it makes a bundle prior to Apple's changing how it sells or licenses its OS.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if PsyStar has been planned as a time-limited venture to make the biggest possible pile before the loopholes are plugged. Most likely, their analyses tell them their profits will exceed their legal fees + settlement payments.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but that would be one damn stylish vest I'll bet
No mod points, but I have to tell you. This is one of the funniest comments I've seen on Slashdot in a LONG damn time ! !
Bear in mind the guy in the link in the RTFA was on a highway that came from basically nowhere but Mexico, and told the Border Patrol that he was coming from Mexico. I agree that "the authorities'" taking more liberties with (from) us is nauseating, but the example is not the kind of one to turn into a court test case. Coming back to San Antonio from Nuevo Laredo in 1975 I also encountered a border patrol agent about twenty minutes back into the US, so there has for some time been a "second line of defense" as a matter of course. However, I was not asked to open my trunk, and so did not have to deal with the suspicion that might have come from refusing, as the guy in the story thought he had to do "on principle" because he was a member of the ACLU. (It appears the story is based on an ACLU video.)
Enthusiastically endorsed by Oprah. Not to seem too cynical, but don't celebrity endorsements generally vary directly with the size of the kickback, er, honorarium?
Actually, I've thought of a device that I'm hoping to build one of these days. It asks all callers for a three-digit password (which you've given to everyone you want to have it). Persons not having the three-digit code go straight to voicemail without ringing your phone, where you may listen to them... someday. Five minutes a couple of times a week reviewing these voicemails isn't too bad.
If plaintiffs were to succeed in an appeal after the termination of the first trial, unlikely as that may be, a new trial could have to happen. To prevent that possibility an Appeals Court might agree to rule now.
...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.
Unfortunately the RIAA do set forth a cognizable rationale for a new trial. It may be that a judge who has set aside a jury verdict won't want to take the rap for a wasteful second trial stemming from that decision, and will let the Appeals Court rule. Now, I'm not predicting the Appeals Court is going to reverse his setting the verdict aside, but we may very well see them taking up the issue.
No add-ons. I want my ad block plus please.
Try privoxy (www.privoxy.org). Works like AdBlock and makes Chrome pretty sweet.
So the big question, as far as I can see, is whether the show will be merely supported by ads, perhaps pre- and post-, or if it will be interrupted by non-skippable ads, which will be a thorough dealbreaker.
Hate replying to my myself, but went to find one of these full-length Trek episodes, clicked on it: "This video is not available in your country". So much for that.
How hard is it to get a US proxy?
Cuz if you step on the wrong agency's documents .....Even crabs wouldn't scavenge upon you after that
This kind of comment used to be a joke-- now, in the present US, it sounds like prophecy. God, people, just think of the damage wrought in the last eight years.
There is a bill being debated in the US Congress right now to limit impoundment of laptops to 24 hours.
Just have a look at intrade.com. You can buy shares on the probability of Obama vs. McCain winning. The contracts on Obama now are statospheric. Want the best barometer? It is how people bet their money!
...is that Carmen Miranda is one of the senatorial candidates! Nice pic, too!
Why not just randomly vary the number and identity of click-through pages to register? In other words to solve a CAPTCHA you must handle an unexpected number of preliminary pages. Bots = confused.
Even the DOJ doesn't like the **AA's game plan. It's falling apart on them.
It's difficult to see how you can say this when the Senate has just passed the Pro-IP Act. The **AAs are popping corks on the Dom Perignon about now.
As a MA attorney let me tell you this would be a case I wouldn't hesitate to take on, even if for an individual and not a class. Ch. 93A defines a "deceptive act or practice" broadly and if you win, the defendant (Wal-Mart) pays your legal fees.
Ugh... 2 words: President Cheney.
He's already effectively president. You don't think Dubya could even plausibly impersonate a president on his own?
As if M$ cares. Already you can't legally buy XP for most business use, and Vista for sure will not work with this product-- for long.
In fact, since this is not the same as the boilerplate legal case that RIAA makes against thousands of consumers annually, it probably also consumed more resources.
Too bad RIAA lawyers get paid by the hour.
The form of action would be for "Disparagement in a trade or profession". However allegations in legal pleadings are exempt from the rules of slander and libel. Otherwise you'd get sued and bankrupted for trying to prove a case that proved to be unprovable-- and the law does not trouble itself to chill or limit your allegations of wrongdoing by the wrongdoer. Just as in a lawsuit you get to have your day in court, in a legal pleading, you get to have your say. If your opponent doesn't like what you said on the public record, he can move to have your pleading impounded. That's just the way we do it.
We no longer live under a system of capitalism. American capitalism has become corporatism.
Yet another reason to love Vista.
Guess what national company beginning with "g" and ending with "e" (no, it's not Gillette) makes virtually all of its money from advertising?
Now, as Chrome is open source, we can expect third-party adblock plugins pronto (tomorrow would not surprise me), but from Google? Best Homey D. Clown voice, now: "I Don't Think So."
One of PsyStar's claims is Restraint of Trade. It is easy to see how that would apply if Apple merely had sole control of the distribution channel for a certain title of software, but where *Apple is the creator / author* of the software I think we have a different situation. The creator / author, it would seem, can create and sell only as many copies as it wishes, and in fact can probably sell only to those it wishes to sell to. PsyStar (regrettably) is going to lose big here, but maybe not before it makes a bundle prior to Apple's changing how it sells or licenses its OS.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if PsyStar has been planned as a time-limited venture to make the biggest possible pile before the loopholes are plugged. Most likely, their analyses tell them their profits will exceed their legal fees + settlement payments.
The smaller diameter / mass will tend to reduce bad effects from conservation of angular momentum.