I love the idea of keeping amendments relevant to the bill at hand. But the question is, who decides the relevance? Do you think Michelle Bachmann would vote that the amendment to repeal the ACA would be irrelevant to this bill? Hardly.
Really, it would just take an adjustment to the rules of the relevant chamber of Congress. A law would make it a little more concrete, as the House and Senate determine their rules at the seating of the new Congress (or something along that timeline).
All of those are excuses, and while one or two might be valid for a specific part, one of the things about security is that you should be doing ALL that stuff, to minimize your risk should one of the other facets fail.
Especially the budget one. I'm sorry, but good security costs money. And until there are very real penalties for not doing it, many cheapasses will simply choose not to.
The only one of those stories you could argue is actual NEWS is the first one, because that one is based on fact. The rest are simply editorials, which reveal a very pro-Android, anti-Apple bias.
Hold the fuck on. You are going to have to prove that she was denied the ability to face her attackers (which is not an actual right, by the way. The right is of the accused to face their accuser). The gag order simply doesn't allow her to mention their name. Unless you can show that she was also denied the ability to be in the courtroom during proceedings, then you're full of shit.
There was a particularly egregious case [cbsnews.com] in Kentucky recently, where a teenage girl was almost charged with contempt (and probably would have been, if not for the press attention), for daring to name her rapists in public.
Had those people been convicted? If not, then I agree with that ruling. Far too often, only the accusation of rape can cause the public to think of someone as guilty, ruining their lives, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of that person.
Yeah, they are, actually. They're the ones that forced Apple to take such an aggressive stance on patents.
And if you'd actually do your research, you'd find that they had gotten the crap sued out of them through most of the 2000s, especially when they first came out with the iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
YOU might not. Recognize that not everyone has the same position you do, and there are people who are very desperate for a job.
But I forgot, that infringes on your ideals of "Fuck them, I've got mine."
I love the idea of keeping amendments relevant to the bill at hand. But the question is, who decides the relevance? Do you think Michelle Bachmann would vote that the amendment to repeal the ACA would be irrelevant to this bill? Hardly.
You act like Congress can only act on one issue at a time. That's simply not true.
Those devices also have classically proven effective at removing the other guy's corruption, while increasing the power of your own corruption.
Really, it would just take an adjustment to the rules of the relevant chamber of Congress. A law would make it a little more concrete, as the House and Senate determine their rules at the seating of the new Congress (or something along that timeline).
And it would keep good things from passing, and it would make anything that does pass into complete and utter crap.
All of those are excuses, and while one or two might be valid for a specific part, one of the things about security is that you should be doing ALL that stuff, to minimize your risk should one of the other facets fail.
Especially the budget one. I'm sorry, but good security costs money. And until there are very real penalties for not doing it, many cheapasses will simply choose not to.
Unfortunately, there are too many people out there who either don't know any of this stuff, or simply don't care, or find it "too expensive".
And who decides who's on that office?
I really like the idea, I'm just worried about what the implementation would be.
Even more unsure how this evidence can be dismissed by a judge. It's important.
Why? It doesn't actually change anything or mean anything.
Seems to me like we need a better judge.
By that you mean, "One who will be biased in favor of what I want"?
The fact that Samsung had this design before they had seen the iPhone design means that they clearly came up with it independently.
Except that's not a fact. At least not one that's been proven yet.
sorry, that is NOT !@#$% invention
Good thing no one is claiming that. Not even Apple. This is not a patent dispute, but a design patent dispute. Huge difference.
Yes, it is bias that made those Samsung designs appear dated back to before the iPhone.
Do they? Do they predate the work that Apple did on the iPhone? So far it doesn't look like it.
I'm beginning to wonder how highly Apple fans would rate on the authoritarianism scale
I would wonder the same thing about most Android fans. They are just as bad, if not worse, than what they claim Apple fans are.
The only one of those stories you could argue is actual NEWS is the first one, because that one is based on fact. The rest are simply editorials, which reveal a very pro-Android, anti-Apple bias.
And not one of them predates the work Apple did on the iPhone.
Hold the fuck on. You are going to have to prove that she was denied the ability to face her attackers (which is not an actual right, by the way. The right is of the accused to face their accuser). The gag order simply doesn't allow her to mention their name. Unless you can show that she was also denied the ability to be in the courtroom during proceedings, then you're full of shit.
And in every other case, the names of juvenile defendants are kept secret. Why should this be any different?
Oh, and her name is out...the victim should never suffer worse judments than the criminal.
So reveal the name AFTER they are convicted. Remember, they're not a criminal until after the jury says so.
There was a particularly egregious case [cbsnews.com] in Kentucky recently, where a teenage girl was almost charged with contempt (and probably would have been, if not for the press attention), for daring to name her rapists in public.
Had those people been convicted? If not, then I agree with that ruling. Far too often, only the accusation of rape can cause the public to think of someone as guilty, ruining their lives, regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of that person.
Exactly what I mean by abuse.
And by abuse, you just mean things you don't like, without any logical reason behind it. Got it.
None of this is invention...this is all about style. And style should NOT be patentable
While I agree with you, the law doesn't. And this isn't the correct venue for that argument.
Probably because it's not evidence. What they were attempting to bring up does not predate any of Apple's designs.
Then go read the rulings from the motions Samsung filed.
Yes, clearly because she's not ruled the way YOU want, she must be dirty and bought off.
Yeah, they are, actually. They're the ones that forced Apple to take such an aggressive stance on patents.
And if you'd actually do your research, you'd find that they had gotten the crap sued out of them through most of the 2000s, especially when they first came out with the iPhone.