Note, an Ipaq is smaller, and you can convert any text on your computer with Overdrive ReaderWorks to.lit format for use with Microsoft Reader. I have read 300 books this way in the last 3 years. The Ipaq is cheaper than the Kindle, too. And did I mention it has Wi-Fi internet access and plays mp3s like an iPod too?
Whether M$ is wrong or right, it makes sense for them to start with a weak defendant and nonimportant patents. If they win because they are big and Tom Tom gives up, they establish a precedent that being a monopolist does not prohibit their asserting patents to crush a smaller competitor, and they start to build a bedrock of patents that are fire-tested and fire-proof. By taking gradual steps M$ may do successfully what it could not by locking horns with Big Blue.
Make all forms of EULAs, DRM, invasive copy protection etc illegal. It's gotten to the point where I want to pirate to avoid that kind of crap that is invasive to my privacy.
Take heart, I believe Obama will finally aid the little guy in his fight against corporatism.
To answer your question, voluntary drunkenness causing a large harm would be treated severely, like drunk driving resulting in an accident. Also, see my other post, the judge may not BELIEVE such a story, and then, as they say, you are for it.
A TRO is just a preliminary preliminary injunction, which can order the party to do or not do something. Usually a TRO is secured ex parte on representation things are getting so desperate so fast there's no time to notify the opposition and have them present. (Typically there is a very speedy hearing to see if the TRO will stand.) In this case if his boss swore on oath the server room would be attacked by Trolls without the passwords (thanks to Scott Adams) and everything laid to waste, a TRO might enter. (Chances are though the admin would be in court for that hearing well before any time of compliance stipulated in a TRO, however.) Since that would irrevocably disclose the passwords, however, the judge might tell the Admin to type in the passwords himself, privately, if the judge felt the Admin had a point about their being abused for other purposes after the immediate emergency were over.
Sounds simple, but could the judge really punish someone if they just used the Reagan ("I don't remember.") defense? This "get out of jail free" card worked again and again for various Bush cronies. I've promptly forgotten entire books of material immediately after final exams myself.
It kind of depends on whether the judge BELIEVES the "I don't remember" defense. If he doesn't, watch out, you're getting hung out to dry until you "remember". If he thinks it's plausible you might have forgotten, he (or she) would try something less severe, tailored to his (or her) impression of the case and the Admin's state of mind / truthfulness. OTOH if (s)he believes it's not likely you remember, you're off the hook. Yes, everyone gets to file affidavits saying how likely it is a Sysadmin would forget such passwords. His medical records could go into evidence (if he's an epileptic, for instance, it is well known that a grand mal seizure can wipe out some significant memory). (To say nothing of processor speed.)
Passwords are not property, the city should have gotten them before firing him. Once they let him go they had no reasonable expectation that he would give them any "knowledge" which is all that the passwords are.
Sorry. I'm a lawyer and you're only partly right. Passwords may not be "property" but it can still be potentially harmful to withhold them. If a plaintiff could prove harm or even better, immediate irreparable injury, a court would say give 'em up or go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
The proper course of action would have been for the DA to sue him in small claims court for the password. Make a valid case and allow him his grievance before a judge, then honor the ruling. Then a judge would have thrown him in jail until he talked for contempt... there's no time limit on contempt, so no need to file other charges! Frankly they're not a good lawyer if they didn't think of the simplest legal thing first.
You can't sue for other than monetary damages in Small Claims courts, at least in my state of Massachusetts. Other states could follow the same logic. However a TRO or preliminary injunction would be allowed in the upper-level courts of most states, and would be reasonably fast.
And the endless attempts at DRM and trying to license everything instead of people actually owning the stuff they buy. I consider it a counter force to the overwhelming concentration of corporate and private power at the expense of the public good and the individuals rights to own what they buy and not trying to be turned into serfs of consumption via legal corruption of the law and peoples rights.
I agree. I have always felt that the people have an inherent right to impose a tax (diversion of some artificially highly-priced product) outside of the formality of written statues. This right becomes vital when corporate interests control the congress and the law.
I still cannot fathom why people scramble to get the latest copy of a Windows OS way before it's really even declared "ready."
Mostly because it's going to be the dominant OS for the next 5+ years and maybe, just maybe, they want to get familiar with it as soon as possible.
Windows still has about 88% of the market. That means, on average, out of 100 people, 1 uses linux, 9 use MacOS, 2 use another OS and 88 use Windows.
Think about that for a moment, 88% vs 1%. The question should be, why do we care about the latest build of anything else?
I've been thinking a 1 or 2 percent user base for Linux really isn't that bad. After all, if most of us looked at our ability levels or SAT scores, we'd be the top 1 or 2 percent of the base of all computer users (which if it isn't everyone has got to be close).
I'm aware this sounds vain as hell, but I'm past the age where I care about sounding as vain as hell. Maybe Linux users are the 1% leading the rest.
What qualifies as an "actionable" post? If I say "I think you are an asshole!", is that actionable? How about if I make the ridiculous claim that "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!"?
.... I complained to my daughter's principle that my daughter's teacher was a racist and wasn't doing her job --
Actually, there are answers to these questions. Yes, I am a Lawyer. "I think you are an asshole" is an obvious opinion and not a statement of fact. Not actionable. "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals." Actionable if it might be believed and not of obvious ridiculousness based on the facts and circumstances. Possibly actionable. Note if we change "farm animals" to "Martians", it would not be actionable. "Teacher is a racist and not doing her job" -- actionable if untrue since it disparages her in her profession (a special case). However if it is true, truth is a defense to a suit for libel.
I'm guessing he found out the RIAA misrepresented something to him.
And unlike the lawyers the RIAA usually uses, he found that a tad problematic.
A lot of lawyers I know take zealous representation of the client a bit far, and give the client the benefit of the doubt far more than others would. Sometimes it is what pyschologists call "magical thinking", as in, I believe, the magic gravel pit tolerated by the Rule against Perpetuities. The problem is that this kind of excessive deference to client interest at the expense of common sense can be easily and comfortably rationalized as preserving the adversary system and by the feeling of an obligation to carry the client's case forward if there is any remote possibility the facts are as he claims based on the lawyer's credo that everyone deserves competent representation or a defense. Sometimes we know our clients aren't perfectly moral but we carry the cases forward ignoring the "peccadillos" because he is OUR client and we've decided we are *on his side*. That's the way it often is, don't you think?
Of course, catch the client in a lie to you, and I would bet for most civil lawyers, all bets are off.
Gee, Ray, I read the motion to enforce default judgment and I saw very few facts indeed other than an allegation of identity, and another of nonpayment. What the h*** could possibly need to be sorted out? Unless maybe Mr. Mann's firm, as a reputable one would, *reviewed the allegations of fact supporting the original default judgment* and found them, well, fantastical, to use a kind word.
Vista nicely demonstrated that people will not put up with whatever MS throws at them, as long as what they already have works well enough for their needs.
The problem is that MS has total control over whether what they have continues to work. You know and I know MS will start to deprecate and even sabotage XP as soon as they really want to start the migration. I firmly believe we need legislation to prevent this.
Slashdot Mirror
Shall We? OK! Users of BSD/OS. A Preferrably with 4n asshole to others
This link is to a picture that is actually a fairly funny parody of goatse. I laughed when I saw it. (You may never look at pumpkins the same again.)
Note, an Ipaq is smaller, and you can convert any text on your computer with Overdrive ReaderWorks to .lit format for use with Microsoft Reader. I have read 300 books this way in the last 3 years. The Ipaq is cheaper than the Kindle, too. And did I mention it has Wi-Fi internet access and plays mp3s like an iPod too?
Whether M$ is wrong or right, it makes sense for them to start with a weak defendant and nonimportant patents. If they win because they are big and Tom Tom gives up, they establish a precedent that being a monopolist does not prohibit their asserting patents to crush a smaller competitor, and they start to build a bedrock of patents that are fire-tested and fire-proof. By taking gradual steps M$ may do successfully what it could not by locking horns with Big Blue.
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens
Wohl so, aber warum denn haben die Goetter die Dummheit gemacht?
It is a serious question why God made stupidity if he himself has to contend with it.
Wow. I wouldn't want to be him / her about now.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Then I hope you can refrain from speaking the truth. It would be socially awkward, I think.
Make all forms of EULAs, DRM, invasive copy protection etc illegal. It's gotten to the point where I want to pirate to avoid that kind of crap that is invasive to my privacy.
Take heart, I believe Obama will finally aid the little guy in his fight against corporatism.
As a lawyer I think many are not for exactly your reason. But can you afford to litigate to find out?
I like your username.
To answer your question, voluntary drunkenness causing a large harm would be treated severely, like drunk driving resulting in an accident. Also, see my other post, the judge may not BELIEVE such a story, and then, as they say, you are for it.
A TRO is just a preliminary preliminary injunction, which can order the party to do or not do something. Usually a TRO is secured ex parte on representation things are getting so desperate so fast there's no time to notify the opposition and have them present. (Typically there is a very speedy hearing to see if the TRO will stand.) In this case if his boss swore on oath the server room would be attacked by Trolls without the passwords (thanks to Scott Adams) and everything laid to waste, a TRO might enter. (Chances are though the admin would be in court for that hearing well before any time of compliance stipulated in a TRO, however.) Since that would irrevocably disclose the passwords, however, the judge might tell the Admin to type in the passwords himself, privately, if the judge felt the Admin had a point about their being abused for other purposes after the immediate emergency were over.
Sounds simple, but could the judge really punish someone if they just used the Reagan ("I don't remember.") defense? This "get out of jail free" card worked again and again for various Bush cronies. I've promptly forgotten entire books of material immediately after final exams myself.
It kind of depends on whether the judge BELIEVES the "I don't remember" defense. If he doesn't, watch out, you're getting hung out to dry until you "remember". If he thinks it's plausible you might have forgotten, he (or she) would try something less severe, tailored to his (or her) impression of the case and the Admin's state of mind / truthfulness. OTOH if (s)he believes it's not likely you remember, you're off the hook. Yes, everyone gets to file affidavits saying how likely it is a Sysadmin would forget such passwords. His medical records could go into evidence (if he's an epileptic, for instance, it is well known that a grand mal seizure can wipe out some significant memory). (To say nothing of processor speed.)
Passwords are not property, the city should have gotten them before firing him. Once they let him go they had no reasonable expectation that he would give them any "knowledge" which is all that the passwords are.
Sorry. I'm a lawyer and you're only partly right. Passwords may not be "property" but it can still be potentially harmful to withhold them. If a plaintiff could prove harm or even better, immediate irreparable injury, a court would say give 'em up or go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
The proper course of action would have been for the DA to sue him in small claims court for the password. Make a valid case and allow him his grievance before a judge, then honor the ruling. Then a judge would have thrown him in jail until he talked for contempt... there's no time limit on contempt, so no need to file other charges! Frankly they're not a good lawyer if they didn't think of the simplest legal thing first.
You can't sue for other than monetary damages in Small Claims courts, at least in my state of Massachusetts. Other states could follow the same logic. However a TRO or preliminary injunction would be allowed in the upper-level courts of most states, and would be reasonably fast.
An Feste Korper? In the Solid Body?
Open?
If we are lucky, the pressure of public involvement and scrutiny will tell the Court something and influence the outcome.
And the endless attempts at DRM and trying to license everything instead of people actually owning the stuff they buy. I consider it a counter force to the overwhelming concentration of corporate and private power at the expense of the public good and the individuals rights to own what they buy and not trying to be turned into serfs of consumption via legal corruption of the law and peoples rights.
I agree. I have always felt that the people have an inherent right to impose a tax (diversion of some artificially highly-priced product) outside of the formality of written statues. This right becomes vital when corporate interests control the congress and the law.
I still cannot fathom why people scramble to get the latest copy of a Windows OS way before it's really even declared "ready."
Mostly because it's going to be the dominant OS for the next 5+ years and maybe, just maybe, they want to get familiar with it as soon as possible.
Windows still has about 88% of the market. That means, on average, out of 100 people, 1 uses linux, 9 use MacOS, 2 use another OS and 88 use Windows.
Think about that for a moment, 88% vs 1%. The question should be, why do we care about the latest build of anything else?
I've been thinking a 1 or 2 percent user base for Linux really isn't that bad. After all, if most of us looked at our ability levels or SAT scores, we'd be the top 1 or 2 percent of the base of all computer users (which if it isn't everyone has got to be close).
I'm aware this sounds vain as hell, but I'm past the age where I care about sounding as vain as hell. Maybe Linux users are the 1% leading the rest.
Is MS software ever "ready" so much as "tolerable"?
What qualifies as an "actionable" post? If I say "I think you are an asshole!", is that actionable? How about if I make the ridiculous claim that "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!"?
....
I complained to my daughter's principle that my daughter's teacher was a racist and wasn't doing her job --
Actually, there are answers to these questions. Yes, I am a Lawyer. "I think you are an asshole" is an obvious opinion and not a statement of fact. Not actionable. "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals." Actionable if it might be believed and not of obvious ridiculousness based on the facts and circumstances. Possibly actionable. Note if we change "farm animals" to "Martians", it would not be actionable. "Teacher is a racist and not doing her job" -- actionable if untrue since it disparages her in her profession (a special case). However if it is true, truth is a defense to a suit for libel.
Just my two cents.
I'm guessing he found out the RIAA misrepresented something to him.
And unlike the lawyers the RIAA usually uses, he found that a tad problematic.
A lot of lawyers I know take zealous representation of the client a bit far, and give the client the benefit of the doubt far more than others would. Sometimes it is what pyschologists call "magical thinking", as in, I believe, the magic gravel pit tolerated by the Rule against Perpetuities. The problem is that this kind of excessive deference to client interest at the expense of common sense can be easily and comfortably rationalized as preserving the adversary system and by the feeling of an obligation to carry the client's case forward if there is any remote possibility the facts are as he claims based on the lawyer's credo that everyone deserves competent representation or a defense. Sometimes we know our clients aren't perfectly moral but we carry the cases forward ignoring the "peccadillos" because he is OUR client and we've decided we are *on his side*. That's the way it often is, don't you think?
Of course, catch the client in a lie to you, and I would bet for most civil lawyers, all bets are off.
Gee, Ray, I read the motion to enforce default judgment and I saw very few facts indeed other than an allegation of identity, and another of nonpayment. What the h*** could possibly need to be sorted out? Unless maybe Mr. Mann's firm, as a reputable one would, *reviewed the allegations of fact supporting the original default judgment* and found them, well, fantastical, to use a kind word.
I *am* a lawyer, you insensitive clod!!
Vista nicely demonstrated that people will not put up with
whatever MS throws at them, as long as what they already have works
well enough for their needs.
The problem is that MS has total control over whether what they have continues to work. You know and I know MS will start to deprecate and even sabotage XP as soon as they really want to start the migration. I firmly believe we need legislation to prevent this.
Case in point, Mike Connell.