If "see, we punished these guys for saying that, and we'll do the same to you if you say that" isn't prior restraint then what would be?
I see what you did there, however your inability to describe an ex post punishment as something other than a prior restraint does not convert the punishment into a legally forbidden prior restraint.
Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity. --William Blackstone (4 Bl. Com. 151, 152.)
The framers of the Constitution and the Supreme Court have followed Blackstone. Follow your philosophy at your own peril.
The entire purpose of getting IP addresses is to establish that many people from California downloaded information. Why is this important? Because Sony wants to sue in California, instead of where GeoHot lives. That's the purpose of this exercise, determining where the case is filed.
Then it is not a valid purpose. Caselaw concerning the internet and personal jurisdiction has been clear for at least the last decade: you have to specifically transact with someone within the jurisdiction. Offering "static" information to the entire world does not subject someone to to personal jurisdiction within every court within the United States. Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King , 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997). Sony has to show that GeoHot made a "purposeful availment of the benefits and protections" offered by California, not that he posted a video that even a horde of Californians viewed on YouTube. Bensusan; International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
I think the judge should have required a neutral third party to analyze the data, instead of trusting Sony, but otherwise this is legitimate.
An unsupported conclusion is no conclusion at all. Cite your authority.
STATE workers are suppose to be WORKING, not surfing. Now, would the liberals complain, if the state blocked the websites of Rush, Palin, Beck, Fox News
"If you are in the Capitol attempting to access the internet from a free wifi connection labeled "guest," you cannot access the site defendwisconsin.org.Huffington Post
STATE workers aren't using wireless "guest" APs to conduct their business. Although the whitelisting issue has discussed in other comments, your assumption that this situation only involed state workers so that the blocking was perfectly OK is deeply flawed. Guest internet access may not be a right, but censoring political content on a government sponsored guest network would still be a first amendment violation.
You're supposed to be working. Not doing political stuff. While it's a dick move, I rather doubt it's a first amendment violation or the end of the world (as is suggested by TFA).
"If you are in the Capitol attempting to access the internet from a free wifi connection labeled "guest," you cannot access the site defendwisconsin.org.Huffinton Post
What if you're not at work, but rather exercising your right to petition your government on your own time? Although the whitelisting issue has discussed in other comments, your assumption that this situation only involed people "at work" so that the blocking of "political stuff" was perfectly OK is deeply flawed. Guest internet access may not be a right, but censoring political content on a government sponsored guest network would still be a first amendment violation.
Pretty much the same as the quantity of lava that "comes out" of a volcano. If I have 5 km^3 of magma under a volcanic structure, and 1 km^3 of lava emerges from the volcanic structure, then assuming that volume is conserved for sake of simplicity, 1 km^3 of magma "came out." After all, only 4 km^3 would remain.
Of course, if we follow your implied definition, then no lava "comes out" of a volcano either. After all, there is no lava inside of the volcano, and your "gotcha" follow up factoid is thus equally flawed. Meanwhile, you risk being stoned by people who view speech and writing as communal forms of communication, rather than specialist-defined collections of absolute rules that must be followed without any deviation by the plebecite.
As opposed to what? Solid magma is more commonly called "rock".
magma n pl -mas, -mata 1. (Physics / General Physics) a paste or suspension consisting of a finely divided solid dispersed in a liquid 2. (Earth Sciences / Geological Science) hot molten rock, usually formed in the earth's upper mantle, some of which finds its way into the crust and onto the earth's surface, where it solidifies to form igneous rock
Collins English Dictionary
A plastic or paste. And, of course, you knew that magma could have a range of viscosity from cumbly-looking rhyolite-forming magmas ( Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Mount St. Helens) to fountain-like basalt forming lavas (Hawaiian volcanoes).
No... because the patent trolls arrested development now.
They've obtained patent rights in every country in the world? They have the omniscience necessary to detect infringement in every laboratory in every industrialized country before it even happens?
In 5 or 10 years, they will have the patents to a next critical step.... required to actually produce/use that Butamax.
Only them. Nobody else could possibly conduct research due to the aforementioned universal scope and power of their mighty patent.
Alternative energy is dependant on more than just one specific technology.
Then it's a good thing that they have a patent on one specific technology. That way, they can leap right into alternative energy when economical oil runs out. The accused infringer couldn't possibly have developed anything that they might need.
Due to the patents, there will be very few R&D attempts by others. Translation: less competition, less innovation, lower chance the technology develops, and with fewer people working on it
Scared that accused infringer right off, didn't it?What's better than being the first guy who invents a basic process? Being the second guy who invents the commercially relevant improvement to that process. Being the third guy who invents an alternative to that process. Why? Because the first guy's patents are going to expire the second's, because the third guy is an alternate source. Time to cross-license or compete.
[I]t will be easy for the Oil companies to make sure they do any "development" / "invention" needed to get more patents FIRST.
The fact that you can write it does not make it so. Prove it. I insist. There's been a patent law in this country for more than 225 years, and competitors leapfrogging each other has become so routine that modern complaints about the patent system focus on "patent thickets" rather than individual blocking patents. Nevermind that "the Oil companies" are not a monolothic entity.
Their patent lasts 20 years from the date of issue (usually 5 or so years after the date of application), so for all intents and purposes, they have a lock on that one patented thing for 30 - 35 years.
20 years from date of filing, or according to your example, for only 15 years. And the patent application is published after 18 months. So... 42 months where the invention is published and not protected by a patent -- yet you claim derivative research is impossible.
Plenty of time to figure out the 'next things' companies developing the technology need, and get patents for those before the patent they have expires.
So... you don't need to be developing the technology yourself in order to identify and solve the next technology need? And those patentable solutions just fall into your lap?
They just make sure to get a new patent locking down a "next step" once every 10 years, then nobody will ever come up with the technology.
It's inevitable. After all, thanks to Intel's patents on the integrated circuit, that technology stopped dead in its tracks.
That is, unless their competitor somehow works somehow in complete secret at a very fast pace, even somehow managing to avoid Oil company spies/corporate espionage, and then still comes out with completed technology and patents that.
Like those uber-secretive Google guys! After conducting their R&D in a secret mountain cave, defeating Yahoo's ninja infiltration squad, and finally winning the hearts of those muisgidedly stuck up sorority-loving comp sci twins, Sergey and Larry battled their way to the USPTO (a la "16 Blocks") and filed their patent application for the Google search engine exactly the way it
Wikileaks doesn't care about who copies the documents, they are angry because he sabotaged their submission system.
In the absence of evidence of a copyright assignment, a license agreement, or an employer-employee relationship, I'm not going to agree with the assumption that it is their submission system.
It sounds to me like the programmer who wrote the system decided to take his ball and go home. If he owned it, that is more or less his right. Considering that Wikileaks didn't even register as a legal entity until three months ago, the assumption that Wikileaks owns much of anything is a bridge too far.
1. What does that have to do with a person talking engineering? NRCHA should have consulted a lawyer if they had questions about notice and comment periods. Or are you claiming amateur engineering work so blinded the NRCHA that it became a de facto legal strategy and so Cox was also practicing law?
2. Your sentence makes little sense, and what little it does make is wrong.
1. If the NRCHA's submission during the notice and comment period is flawed due to a faulty study, they're not going to get a do-over. Really, have you ever submitted a comment concerning a government project in you life, or are you just hoping that the world works the way that you think that it should?
2. "That" = point 1. Rather obvious if you don't insist on being obtuse. As to the rest - prove it buddy.
Law tends to be far better suited for knowing how day-to-day government works than software programming, mny friend. Stick to your strength.
1. Basically nothing. They can petition again, appeal, do whatever else they want. 2. Protected against what? They have incurred no liability for anything, and citizen input cannot be dismissed with prejudice.
1. Notice and comment periods limit the times during which you can raise these issues. Appeals do not provide for de novo review of the determinations of agencies, they only allow for showings that the decision was unreasonable based on clear error, lack of substantial evidence, decisions against the manifest weight of the evidence before them, etc.
the ultimate (worst case) outcome of this would be to prevent anyone from making informed or researched statement in a petition to the state -Or to have to hire a licensed professional to prepare the technical parts of such a petition.
I don't belive that this has been re-reported correctly. Read the linked article carefully -- "Cox and the North Raleigh Coalition of Homeowners' Associations responded with a sophisticated analysis of their own." As a lawyer and an engineer (but not a PE), I'd willing to bet that he's been reported to the Board not because he performed engineering quality work pre se, but because he performed that work on behalf of the NRCHA as part of a joint submission.
It's unusual to go after someone for practicing without a license when they so something solely for themselves. It's possible that the state could still go after someone in that situation if they were actually building something, since that's not speech or petitioning the government (1st amendment) and there are third party safety issues. But if you really think about it, it's both likely and useful to go after someone for practicing without a license where they take on the same function as part of a collective effort. First question: what is the consequence to NRCHA if he's screwed it up? Second question: should they be unprotected simply because they didn't pay for his help?
You are not using their store without authorization (they have to TELL YOU TO LEAVE before they have any legal relief for your being there).
Citation needed. Really. I can pretty much guarantee that a group of 100 would be charged without necessarily being asked to leave. Tresspass, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... the particular charge would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; but don't mistake private damage control with a legal requirement.
The problem with calling a DDOS "unauthorized access" is that the access is implicitly authorized by the server being on the internet.
No, since you're implying that the implicit authorization is unlimited rather than limited to expected or customary activities. Want a REAL real world example? Student newspaper theft. You are implicitly allowed to take one free paper (or, practically, a few) due to the papers being set out in a kiosk or bin. You are not allowed to take every paper with the intent of preventing others from obtaining them or the paper delivering them. Really. You don't have to be told not to do it.
You can be charged with a crime for taking something that is being given away for free when you exceed the scope of an implicit authorization, and you can be charged with a crime for entering into locations that exceed the scope of an implicit authorization. Really. You don't have to be told not to do something unusual.
There is nothing magical about a DDOS when it comes to the explicit or implicit authorization that you may have to interact with someone else's computers and services. It's criminal. You damn well know it. Protest is not a legal justification; so welcome to the real world, where you may end up with a criminal record no matter how worthy you, rather than society at large, believe your cause to be.
I'm sorry, we don't share in their profits, we should not be responsible for their mistakes.
Ignoring the lease fees on the area that were paid to the U.S. government, the Minerals Management Service royalties that were to be paid to the U.S. government for oil produced from that area, the income taxes derived from the revenue generated from that area... oh, and the fines to be collected by the U.S. government in addition to cleanup costs and the damage fund.
[R]egulation is desired in cases such as this, but not to share blame, only as an additional protective measure.
Compliance with government regulations is evidence that you have not been acting negligently. Not conclusively so, but still relevant to the overall determination. It could also be evidence that risks were not foreseeable by reasonable people in that field. Again, not conclusively so, since governmental regulation can lag progress in a field. I raise this primarily with regard to my next point, since I think that you could easily argue that oil production is an inherently dangerous activity (unlike ordinary cases where someone complies with government regulations, like compliance with governmental automobile design safety standards), which would negate these mitigating factors under a common law approach to tort liability.
[R]esponsibility for safety rests squarely on those that are conducting the drilling and reaping the profits.
No, to the extent that you're suggesting that it rests only on those that are conducting the drilling. Governmental authorities bear a responsibility for safety in any activity that they actively regulate or police. Failures to ensure safety are theirs as well, and they must be held accountable for those failures. Your very explicit association of blame only with financial responsibility is where you fail.
For anyone who likes their games to run at 30fps at 1024x768 with low graphics settings. The rest of us find that kind of slow actually.
Do the "rest of us" constantly carp that Nvidia IGP graphics are slow, AMD IGP graphics are slow, and AMD Fusion graphics (will be) slow? Because this is what the GP was referencing. Nobody expects "built in" graphics to be comparable to high end discrete graphics. Performance comparable to the lesser Nvidia and AMD chips, e.g., AMD 5400 series, Nvidia 410 and 420 (possibly 430) series, is not considered slow by anyone except high end gamers. High end gamers buy discrete graphics cards (or specialized notebooks), period. The "rest of us" is broader than that. The "rest of us" includes business users, HTPC users, and casual gamers.
GP didn't mention gamers. I'm not willing to pay more so that every CPU and/or motherboard is suitable for high end gaming. Your expectations are unrealistic. Good day.
Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate.
Javelin, blowgun, slingshot, and let's not forget, longbow and crossbow.
Yeah, it's only the minimum wage equivalent of 13,000 man years. That's almost nothing.
It's easy to argue that an aggregate total of something should be appropriated by someone "in charge" for some worthy cause. I'd love 13,000 man years to be dedicated to solving major problems. More power to those involved.
It's ridiculous to argue that all individual effort not directed to a worthy cause should be confiscated for redirection to a worthy cause. You may as well scrap any semblance of free will in our society. After all, the time spent calculating that total didn't contribute an iota to preventing people from dying, now did it? You bad, non-cause supporting person you. Heck, if you've ever slept in without needing to recover from an illness, we may as well declare that a crime against humanity -- just think of the aggregate loss in worthy-cause productivity.
Look up the definition of hypocrisy. If you can't say that you've never engaged in an equally or even more frivolous activity, your criticism and the GGPs complaint fall pretty squarely within its bounds.
I take it that essentially every moment of your time is devoted to preventing people from dying, since the $1.66 that this would represent if you spread the expense over every person in ths U.S. (neglecting the other 6.6 billion people in the world) is less than a half hour of a net minimum wage.
While we're at it, let's get rid of those pesky cultural arts, since that's virtually all "masturbation" as well.
Since this is currently the highest modded "First Amendment" post, I'll critique it -- not you specifically.
[1] The government issued an injunction to remove comments from the web site that [2] the site refused to obey, [3] which puts it squarely in First Amendment territory.
[1] Yes. The trial court issued an injunction in a default judgment against the defendant (the poster, not the web site).
[2] Indirectly. The web site (correctly) argued that it was not required to follow the injunction, because it was neither the defendant nor a party "in active concert or participation" with the defendant. There is a rule of the Federal Courts, FRCP 65(d), that constrains the courts' ability to issue judgments affecting those who are not parties to the case. The district court followed it. The plaintiff took this up on appeal.
[3] No. 47 USC 230(c)(1) says that the web site cannot be treated as the speaker, and apparently cannot be compelled to remove content (other than through mechanisms like the DMCA takedown notice existing in other statutes). It would/will be interesting to see if the web site could be compelled to take down content if it was defamatory and the defendant was seeking to have it taken down. However, that is not the case. Nobody has proved that the content is defamatory in a way that binds the web site to that conclusion, and the defendant is apparently MIA.
This is not a first amendment issue, it is first an issue of compliance with judicial rules, and second a statutory issue involving ISP/ICS immunity. The courts will not consider something a constitutional issue if it can be resolved solely though existing rules and statutes. Whatever policy or rhetorical relationship there is with the first amendment, this case has been decided purely based upon legislated laws.
IMHO copying sheet music for in-class use should be fair use and should be exempted from licencing requirements.
Because then single copies of sheet music won't be priced as if they will be photocopied 10x-100x times, but stay exactly the same? The music publisher may not be able to catch individuals copying the then "overpriced" works, but they can certainly catch educational institutions that haven't purchased even one copy of the work.
Your proposal won't happen in any case. How do you propose to distinguish between sheet music, music books, music textbooks, and music software? If one, why not the others? It's been clear for at least the last decade (in the US) that copying substantial portions of a commerical work, even for "educational purposes," is not a fair use.
If your opinion is not based in reason or economics, but merely a knee-jerk reaction to your own perception of fairness, you'll quickly find that things are not going to work out in the way that you had hoped.
So you DO support the idea of people like RedK blatantly misrepresenting facts so long as the untruths support your side? Because that's the only possible conclusion!
So people, stop playing the "donation" card, you're all wrong unless you have proof that he was actually breaking the rule.
RedK requested proof. He was provided with it. What I support is irrelevant.
In case you can't catch it before the description collapses:
One Dollar For Internet Freedom
Internet democracy requires funds to stay strong. By purchasing the Wikileaks app, you donate 1 dollar of the purchase price towards organizations that work to promote the future of online democracy.
See daily updates of fund raising on @wikileaksapp
Or view the source. BTW: If the Google cache copy expires, the full text is also at this page.
How you can make such a declaration when you obviously lack any actual knowledge concerning the app listing is beyond me. How your post managed to be modded +4 Insightful is appalling.
The issue is that it is *not* the US Government asking to see the data, it's the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut. Who may or may not have any legal justification for even asking for it.
Every state is a soverign entity with general police and lawmaking powers, whereas the federal government in theory has powers limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. The attorney general of a state is the elected head law enforcement officer of that state (presuming that you view law enforcement as including the state's legal staff, in addition to its police).
What on earth makes you think that the FTC but not the states, which have even greater powers over general business practices, should have the power to investigate what occured here?
So how many levels in our kludgeocracy should Google have to explain its actions to?
Federal and State. Each entity has its own laws, and its own ability to enforce them. If you assault a federal employee in Glastonbury, you can be prosecuted by both the "US Government" and the State of Connecticut, one after the other, because you have commited multiple crimes, some federal and some state.
If you are a defendant in a criminal case, do you want the evidence brought against you, the interpretation of the law that is being applied against you, and any questions that the jury cannot decide for themselves based that evidence and interpretation to be available in an accurate record that you can cite in an appeal, or in a juror's cellphone browser history that walks out the door and never sees the light of day?
Yes, it is a loaded question, because if you had any experience with the legal system, you'd know that details like the rules of evidence, jury instructions, and the trial judge's handling of jury questions/special verdicts are critical in the attempt to ensure that jurors make decisions based on reliable and complete information in accordance with the law of that jurisdiction.
Wikipedia's definition of the terms, even if generally accurate, will not reflect the statutes and judicial interpretations that apply in any particular jurisdiction. I will guarantee that the jury was given an explanation of the concepts applicable to the case in that jurisdiction either during the oral instructions, in a written version of those instructions, or by both methods. The lawyers and the judge went over those instructions carefully to ensure that they were correct, because if they were not that's a potential issue for reversal on appeal, even ignoring the fact that at least the judge wants the jury to make a decision on proper grounds in the first place. Any additional information that the jury needs is supposed to go through the same vetting process, and be recorded in a written record, to in order to increase the odds of justice being done both with respect to society and any individual defendant.
The Wikipedia information that the juror brought into deliberations wasn't going to appear in the trial record. So what would happen if it was wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you did there, however your inability to describe an ex post punishment as something other than a prior restraint does not convert the punishment into a legally forbidden prior restraint.
The framers of the Constitution and the Supreme Court have followed Blackstone. Follow your philosophy at your own peril.
Then it is not a valid purpose. Caselaw concerning the internet and personal jurisdiction has been clear for at least the last decade: you have to specifically transact with someone within the jurisdiction. Offering "static" information to the entire world does not subject someone to to personal jurisdiction within every court within the United States. Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King , 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997). Sony has to show that GeoHot made a "purposeful availment of the benefits and protections" offered by California, not that he posted a video that even a horde of Californians viewed on YouTube. Bensusan; International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
An unsupported conclusion is no conclusion at all. Cite your authority.
STATE workers aren't using wireless "guest" APs to conduct their business. Although the whitelisting issue has discussed in other comments, your assumption that this situation only involed state workers so that the blocking was perfectly OK is deeply flawed. Guest internet access may not be a right, but censoring political content on a government sponsored guest network would still be a first amendment violation.
What if you're not at work, but rather exercising your right to petition your government on your own time? Although the whitelisting issue has discussed in other comments, your assumption that this situation only involed people "at work" so that the blocking of "political stuff" was perfectly OK is deeply flawed. Guest internet access may not be a right, but censoring political content on a government sponsored guest network would still be a first amendment violation.
Pretty much the same as the quantity of lava that "comes out" of a volcano. If I have 5 km^3 of magma under a volcanic structure, and 1 km^3 of lava emerges from the volcanic structure, then assuming that volume is conserved for sake of simplicity, 1 km^3 of magma "came out." After all, only 4 km^3 would remain.
Of course, if we follow your implied definition, then no lava "comes out" of a volcano either. After all, there is no lava inside of the volcano, and your "gotcha" follow up factoid is thus equally flawed. Meanwhile, you risk being stoned by people who view speech and writing as communal forms of communication, rather than specialist-defined collections of absolute rules that must be followed without any deviation by the plebecite.
magma
n pl -mas, -mata
1. (Physics / General Physics) a paste or suspension consisting of a finely divided solid dispersed in a liquid
2. (Earth Sciences / Geological Science) hot molten rock, usually formed in the earth's upper mantle, some of which finds its way into the crust and onto the earth's surface, where it solidifies to form igneous rock
Collins English Dictionary
A plastic or paste. And, of course, you knew that magma could have a range of viscosity from cumbly-looking rhyolite-forming magmas ( Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Mount St. Helens) to fountain-like basalt forming lavas (Hawaiian volcanoes).
They've obtained patent rights in every country in the world? They have the omniscience necessary to detect infringement in every laboratory in every industrialized country before it even happens?
Only them. Nobody else could possibly conduct research due to the aforementioned universal scope and power of their mighty patent.
Then it's a good thing that they have a patent on one specific technology. That way, they can leap right into alternative energy when economical oil runs out. The accused infringer couldn't possibly have developed anything that they might need.
Scared that accused infringer right off, didn't it?What's better than being the first guy who invents a basic process? Being the second guy who invents the commercially relevant improvement to that process. Being the third guy who invents an alternative to that process. Why? Because the first guy's patents are going to expire the second's, because the third guy is an alternate source. Time to cross-license or compete.
The fact that you can write it does not make it so. Prove it. I insist. There's been a patent law in this country for more than 225 years, and competitors leapfrogging each other has become so routine that modern complaints about the patent system focus on "patent thickets" rather than individual blocking patents. Nevermind that "the Oil companies" are not a monolothic entity.
20 years from date of filing, or according to your example, for only 15 years. And the patent application is published after 18 months. So... 42 months where the invention is published and not protected by a patent -- yet you claim derivative research is impossible.
So... you don't need to be developing the technology yourself in order to identify and solve the next technology need? And those patentable solutions just fall into your lap?
It's inevitable. After all, thanks to Intel's patents on the integrated circuit, that technology stopped dead in its tracks.
Like those uber-secretive Google guys! After conducting their R&D in a secret mountain cave, defeating Yahoo's ninja infiltration squad, and finally winning the hearts of those muisgidedly stuck up sorority-loving comp sci twins, Sergey and Larry battled their way to the USPTO (a la "16 Blocks") and filed their patent application for the Google search engine exactly the way it
In the absence of evidence of a copyright assignment, a license agreement, or an employer-employee relationship, I'm not going to agree with the assumption that it is their submission system.
It sounds to me like the programmer who wrote the system decided to take his ball and go home. If he owned it, that is more or less his right. Considering that Wikileaks didn't even register as a legal entity until three months ago, the assumption that Wikileaks owns much of anything is a bridge too far.
1. If the NRCHA's submission during the notice and comment period is flawed due to a faulty study, they're not going to get a do-over. Really, have you ever submitted a comment concerning a government project in you life, or are you just hoping that the world works the way that you think that it should?
2. "That" = point 1. Rather obvious if you don't insist on being obtuse. As to the rest - prove it buddy.
Law tends to be far better suited for knowing how day-to-day government works than software programming, mny friend. Stick to your strength.
1. Notice and comment periods limit the times during which you can raise these issues. Appeals do not provide for de novo review of the determinations of agencies, they only allow for showings that the decision was unreasonable based on clear error, lack of substantial evidence, decisions against the manifest weight of the evidence before them, etc.
2. That, and yes, they can.
I don't belive that this has been re-reported correctly. Read the linked article carefully -- "Cox and the North Raleigh Coalition of Homeowners' Associations responded with a sophisticated analysis of their own." As a lawyer and an engineer (but not a PE), I'd willing to bet that he's been reported to the Board not because he performed engineering quality work pre se, but because he performed that work on behalf of the NRCHA as part of a joint submission.
It's unusual to go after someone for practicing without a license when they so something solely for themselves. It's possible that the state could still go after someone in that situation if they were actually building something, since that's not speech or petitioning the government (1st amendment) and there are third party safety issues. But if you really think about it, it's both likely and useful to go after someone for practicing without a license where they take on the same function as part of a collective effort. First question: what is the consequence to NRCHA if he's screwed it up? Second question: should they be unprotected simply because they didn't pay for his help?
Citation needed. Really. I can pretty much guarantee that a group of 100 would be charged without necessarily being asked to leave. Tresspass, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... the particular charge would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; but don't mistake private damage control with a legal requirement.
No, since you're implying that the implicit authorization is unlimited rather than limited to expected or customary activities. Want a REAL real world example? Student newspaper theft. You are implicitly allowed to take one free paper (or, practically, a few) due to the papers being set out in a kiosk or bin. You are not allowed to take every paper with the intent of preventing others from obtaining them or the paper delivering them. Really. You don't have to be told not to do it.
You can be charged with a crime for taking something that is being given away for free when you exceed the scope of an implicit authorization, and you can be charged with a crime for entering into locations that exceed the scope of an implicit authorization. Really. You don't have to be told not to do something unusual.
There is nothing magical about a DDOS when it comes to the explicit or implicit authorization that you may have to interact with someone else's computers and services. It's criminal. You damn well know it. Protest is not a legal justification; so welcome to the real world, where you may end up with a criminal record no matter how worthy you, rather than society at large, believe your cause to be.
Ignoring the lease fees on the area that were paid to the U.S. government, the Minerals Management Service royalties that were to be paid to the U.S. government for oil produced from that area, the income taxes derived from the revenue generated from that area... oh, and the fines to be collected by the U.S. government in addition to cleanup costs and the damage fund.
Compliance with government regulations is evidence that you have not been acting negligently. Not conclusively so, but still relevant to the overall determination. It could also be evidence that risks were not foreseeable by reasonable people in that field. Again, not conclusively so, since governmental regulation can lag progress in a field. I raise this primarily with regard to my next point, since I think that you could easily argue that oil production is an inherently dangerous activity (unlike ordinary cases where someone complies with government regulations, like compliance with governmental automobile design safety standards), which would negate these mitigating factors under a common law approach to tort liability.
No, to the extent that you're suggesting that it rests only on those that are conducting the drilling. Governmental authorities bear a responsibility for safety in any activity that they actively regulate or police. Failures to ensure safety are theirs as well, and they must be held accountable for those failures. Your very explicit association of blame only with financial responsibility is where you fail.
Do the "rest of us" constantly carp that Nvidia IGP graphics are slow, AMD IGP graphics are slow, and AMD Fusion graphics (will be) slow? Because this is what the GP was referencing. Nobody expects "built in" graphics to be comparable to high end discrete graphics. Performance comparable to the lesser Nvidia and AMD chips, e.g., AMD 5400 series, Nvidia 410 and 420 (possibly 430) series, is not considered slow by anyone except high end gamers. High end gamers buy discrete graphics cards (or specialized notebooks), period. The "rest of us" is broader than that. The "rest of us" includes business users, HTPC users, and casual gamers.
GP didn't mention gamers. I'm not willing to pay more so that every CPU and/or motherboard is suitable for high end gaming. Your expectations are unrealistic. Good day.
What might that be? Shooting clay pigeons, shooting game, shooting people -- all the same purpose?
Using that logic, a knife has only one purpose. Making people very dead.
You don't?
There's obviously no point in arguing with you. You're not going to let facts get in the way of outlandish hyperbole.
Javelin, blowgun, slingshot, and let's not forget, longbow and crossbow.
It's easy to argue that an aggregate total of something should be appropriated by someone "in charge" for some worthy cause. I'd love 13,000 man years to be dedicated to solving major problems. More power to those involved.
It's ridiculous to argue that all individual effort not directed to a worthy cause should be confiscated for redirection to a worthy cause. You may as well scrap any semblance of free will in our society. After all, the time spent calculating that total didn't contribute an iota to preventing people from dying, now did it? You bad, non-cause supporting person you. Heck, if you've ever slept in without needing to recover from an illness, we may as well declare that a crime against humanity -- just think of the aggregate loss in worthy-cause productivity.
Look up the definition of hypocrisy. If you can't say that you've never engaged in an equally or even more frivolous activity, your criticism and the GGPs complaint fall pretty squarely within its bounds.
I take it that essentially every moment of your time is devoted to preventing people from dying, since the $1.66 that this would represent if you spread the expense over every person in ths U.S. (neglecting the other 6.6 billion people in the world) is less than a half hour of a net minimum wage.
While we're at it, let's get rid of those pesky cultural arts, since that's virtually all "masturbation" as well.
Since this is currently the highest modded "First Amendment" post, I'll critique it -- not you specifically.
[1] Yes. The trial court issued an injunction in a default judgment against the defendant (the poster, not the web site).
[2] Indirectly. The web site (correctly) argued that it was not required to follow the injunction, because it was neither the defendant nor a party "in active concert or participation" with the defendant. There is a rule of the Federal Courts, FRCP 65(d), that constrains the courts' ability to issue judgments affecting those who are not parties to the case. The district court followed it. The plaintiff took this up on appeal.
[3] No. 47 USC 230(c)(1) says that the web site cannot be treated as the speaker, and apparently cannot be compelled to remove content (other than through mechanisms like the DMCA takedown notice existing in other statutes). It would/will be interesting to see if the web site could be compelled to take down content if it was defamatory and the defendant was seeking to have it taken down. However, that is not the case. Nobody has proved that the content is defamatory in a way that binds the web site to that conclusion, and the defendant is apparently MIA.
This is not a first amendment issue, it is first an issue of compliance with judicial rules, and second a statutory issue involving ISP/ICS immunity. The courts will not consider something a constitutional issue if it can be resolved solely though existing rules and statutes. Whatever policy or rhetorical relationship there is with the first amendment, this case has been decided purely based upon legislated laws.
Because then single copies of sheet music won't be priced as if they will be photocopied 10x-100x times, but stay exactly the same? The music publisher may not be able to catch individuals copying the then "overpriced" works, but they can certainly catch educational institutions that haven't purchased even one copy of the work.
Your proposal won't happen in any case. How do you propose to distinguish between sheet music, music books, music textbooks, and music software? If one, why not the others? It's been clear for at least the last decade (in the US) that copying substantial portions of a commerical work, even for "educational purposes," is not a fair use.
If your opinion is not based in reason or economics, but merely a knee-jerk reaction to your own perception of fairness, you'll quickly find that things are not going to work out in the way that you had hoped.
RedK requested proof. He was provided with it. What I support is irrelevant.
The Google cache of the app page disagrees with you.
In case you can't catch it before the description collapses:
Or view the source. BTW: If the Google cache copy expires, the full text is also at this page.
How you can make such a declaration when you obviously lack any actual knowledge concerning the app listing is beyond me. How your post managed to be modded +4 Insightful is appalling.
Every state is a soverign entity with general police and lawmaking powers, whereas the federal government in theory has powers limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. The attorney general of a state is the elected head law enforcement officer of that state (presuming that you view law enforcement as including the state's legal staff, in addition to its police).
What on earth makes you think that the FTC but not the states, which have even greater powers over general business practices, should have the power to investigate what occured here?
Federal and State. Each entity has its own laws, and its own ability to enforce them. If you assault a federal employee in Glastonbury, you can be prosecuted by both the "US Government" and the State of Connecticut, one after the other, because you have commited multiple crimes, some federal and some state.
I've posted this before, but it bears repeating:
If you are a defendant in a criminal case, do you want the evidence brought against you, the interpretation of the law that is being applied against you, and any questions that the jury cannot decide for themselves based that evidence and interpretation to be available in an accurate record that you can cite in an appeal, or in a juror's cellphone browser history that walks out the door and never sees the light of day?
Yes, it is a loaded question, because if you had any experience with the legal system, you'd know that details like the rules of evidence, jury instructions, and the trial judge's handling of jury questions/special verdicts are critical in the attempt to ensure that jurors make decisions based on reliable and complete information in accordance with the law of that jurisdiction.
Wikipedia's definition of the terms, even if generally accurate, will not reflect the statutes and judicial interpretations that apply in any particular jurisdiction. I will guarantee that the jury was given an explanation of the concepts applicable to the case in that jurisdiction either during the oral instructions, in a written version of those instructions, or by both methods. The lawyers and the judge went over those instructions carefully to ensure that they were correct, because if they were not that's a potential issue for reversal on appeal, even ignoring the fact that at least the judge wants the jury to make a decision on proper grounds in the first place. Any additional information that the jury needs is supposed to go through the same vetting process, and be recorded in a written record, to in order to increase the odds of justice being done both with respect to society and any individual defendant.
The Wikipedia information that the juror brought into deliberations wasn't going to appear in the trial record. So what would happen if it was wrong?