And that existed long before TiVo came into existence in 97. My college roommate had a tuner in his Mac in 96 that could pause live tv. TiVo simply patented the already-in-existence. Tivo = troll.
They didn't sue because they made a DVR. They sued over Pause, Rewind, and Fast Forward. Once you have a recording device, those aspects ARE obvious. In fact, they existed on another recording device. So yeah, that's pretty trollish.
And yet when anyone else patents a PAINFULLY OBVIOUS feature they are evil. But because it's TiVo they get a pass? I had thought about getting one. I'm passing now. TiVo = geek-friendly patent troll.
Cite sources, please. As an Ohio resident, I'm sure you understand why this concerns me. Giving someone a ride to the polls is payment? Really? Please cite ORC where that is stated.
You missed the part where giving people multiple votes based on owning land violates the equal protection clause. Don't worry, I'll keep repeating it for you.
As far as me creating my own context...you said that since "they don't pay taxes" means their vote should not count the same as yours. What you may have meant was that they paid less in taxes than you, but unless they never buy anything at all they do pay taxes. That is an elitist caste system mentality. And it is the reason the equal protection clause was added to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Not to mention the 24th, which does not allow taxes to be used in any voting determination.
As I pointed out. Three times now.
Your next point was that since "they don't own land" their vote shouldn't count as much as yours. I don't own land either. Should my vote count less?
You then said "they don't have families." Did you mean your narrow view in that they most likely aren't married with children? I'm not married and don't have children. Should my vote count less than yours? Or did you mean they don't have any family? No brothers, no sisters, no parents living? That being an only child with no parents living should make a vote count less frequently?
By your rationale, elections should be decided by the number of multiple-voters who decide to turn out. That we should put it all in the hands of the married homeowners with children and minimize the significance of the single, the renters, the childless.
And since you can't read, I replied to ALL ASPECTS of your post, including the assertion that landowners should have votes with more weight. I'll QUOTE it for your convenience:
"Why isn't owning land allowed to let a vote count more? Because it violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Section 1. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection. As in all citizens count the same for voting."
And to finish off this thread, Ohio law has provisions for homeless voting!
Where do I vote?
Ohio election officials determine a person's qualifying voting address using guidelines established by Ohio law (Revised Code (R.C.) 3503.02). Where an individual votes depends on where he or she is determined by law to reside. A voter may vote from only one residence. Your voting residence is the place in which your habitation is fixed and to which, whenever you are absent, you intend to return. Your voting residence should be one you consider to be permanent, not temporary. You will not lose your voting residency in Ohio if you leave temporarily and intend to return, unless you are absent from the state for four consecutive years. (Exception: You will not lose your residency after four years if your absence from Ohio is due to your employment with Ohio or the United States government, including military service, unless you vote in, or permanently move to, another state.)
If you do not have a fixed place of habitation, but you are a consistent or regular inhabitant of a shelter or other location to which you intend to return, you may use that shelter or other location as your residence for purposes of registering to vote.
What are the qualifications to register and to vote in Ohio?
You are qualified to register to vote in Ohio if you meet all the following requirements:
1. You are a citizen of the United States;
2. You will be at least 18 years old on or before the day of the general election. (If you will be 18 on or before November 4, you may vote in the primary election for candidates, but you cannot vote on issues until you are 18);
3. You will be a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days immediately before the election in which you want to vote;
4. You are not incarcerated (in prison or jail) for a felony conviction under the laws of this state, another state or the United States;
5. You have not been declared incompetent for voting purposes by a probate court; and
6. You have not been permanently disenfranchised for violations of the election laws.
You are eligible to vote in elections held in your voting precinct more than 30 consecutive days after you are duly registered to vote in this state.
I see nothing about paying taxes. Nothing about owning land. Nothing about having families. Basically, you're talking out your ass with no factual basis for doing so. Because your points are all 100% wrong and 100% foul of Ohio election laws.
Why isn't owning land allowed to let a vote count more? Because it violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Section 1. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection. As in all citizens count the same for voting.
Furthermore, any use of taxes to determine voting rights or status falls foul of the 24th amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
If a homeless person can prove citizenship, there is no legal basis to deny or devalue their vote.
Actually, you need to work on the reading comprehension. He didn't say anything about suing Apple, he talked about lawyers to PROTECT his freedom when (and clearly if) Apple were to sue him for speaking out. So, no, the Redcoats thing isn't over the top, as Apple would have attacked and he would be defending.
Further, I would love to see Apple try to convince a judge that an unsigned NDA is legally enforceable. "Ok, show me where exactly I signed. Oh, you just have a checkbox? Doesn't look like I signed anything."
Or perhaps, because they don't have the passwords they can't do this? From what I recall (and I have been mistaken before) He has all the equipment set to require a reload of the config data if there is a power cycle so they do not have access to the running config.
How, then, can they use the management functions of the equipment if they can't get to it?
Oh, I get it. They are supposed to pull the plugs (or hard reset) to regain control of the system and then try to set it back up without his help.
Actually, as a citizen of a democracy, it is my right to decide what should be law and what should not.
Unfortunately my rights are being stomped on by people buying my political representatives.
If you have political representatives, you (by definition) do not live in a democracy.
No federal law covers MOUNTING only USE AND PLACEMENT. They can not forbid you to USE an external, but you do not rent the outside walls of the building and they can take repairs to the balcony out of your security deposit.
Hence, "Sure I could have an unattached antenna (say, on a pole in a 5-gal bucket of cement). But when you're north facing you're pretty much sol when it comes to reception."
Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?
A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling.
Q: Does the rule apply to condominiums or apartment buildings if the antenna is installed so that it hangs over or protrudes beyond the balcony railing or patio wall?
A: No. The rule does not prohibit restrictions on antennas installed beyond the balcony or patio of a condominium or apartment unit if such installation is in, on, or over a common area. An antenna that extends out beyond the balcony or patio is usually considered to be in a common area that is not within the scope of the rule. Therefore, the rule does not apply to a condominium or rental apartment unit unless the antenna is installed wholly within the exclusive use area, such as the balcony or patio.
Q: I live in a condominium with a balcony, but I cannot receive a signal from the satellite because my balcony faces north. Can I use the roof?
A: No. The roof of a condominium is generally a common area, not an area reserved for an individual's exclusive use. If the roof is a common area, you may not use it unless the condominium association gives you permission. The condominium is not obligated to provide a place for you to install an antenna if you do not have an exclusive use area.
Note that if any part of your antenna hangs over the edge of your balcony, you are not covered under these rules.
The landlord MAY tell him he can not mount it to anything but a pole in a bucket of cement (or a pole that does NOT require drilling into any part of the structure) because the external walls of a building are not exclusive to the renter. A tenant has no rights to drill holes in anything unless a landlord grants it. That is clearly stated in the same page which people are claiming allows it.
Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?
A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling.
That applies only to placement, not mounting. A landlord is entirely within his rights to not allow tenants to go drilling holes for mounting brackets. Best would be a satellite pole mount with u bolts around the supports so there is no drilling.
I was referring to roof-mounted antennae (as did most everyone else - sorry if I was unclear), so no he cannot be prevented from putting one on his balcony. But he can be prevented from mounting it to the wall or drilling any holes in the balcony proper in order to mount it.
Someone find him a tripod or clamped antenna mount and it'll be all good. Or he could find a low profile type of omni antenna and work with his landlord to get it put up and wired properly. Most property owners are extremely receptive to things which have the potential to increase rent value and having antennae runs available to any resident does just that.
The FCC can not tell a property owner he or she must allow an antenna. The FCC can not dictate anything in regards to property. In fact, a property owner not allowing external antennae would not fall foul of any federal law, since the only federal laws in regards to renting property are that you do not discriminate based on any of the legally protected classes.
That said, he should check into local zoning laws. But that has nothing to do with the FCC. A state or city may allow such a thing, but in most cases I would say that a tenant can not install his or her OWN antenna. The owner, manager, or maintenance staff would need to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading the patent, it specifices a magnification effect on the icon the mouse is over.
In 96, almost 3 years before the first tivo, I could have shown you a Mac that could do it.
And that existed long before TiVo came into existence in 97. My college roommate had a tuner in his Mac in 96 that could pause live tv. TiVo simply patented the already-in-existence. Tivo = troll.
They didn't sue because they made a DVR. They sued over Pause, Rewind, and Fast Forward. Once you have a recording device, those aspects ARE obvious. In fact, they existed on another recording device. So yeah, that's pretty trollish.
And yet when anyone else patents a PAINFULLY OBVIOUS feature they are evil. But because it's TiVo they get a pass? I had thought about getting one. I'm passing now. TiVo = geek-friendly patent troll.
Cite sources, please. As an Ohio resident, I'm sure you understand why this concerns me. Giving someone a ride to the polls is payment? Really? Please cite ORC where that is stated.
You missed the part where giving people multiple votes based on owning land violates the equal protection clause. Don't worry, I'll keep repeating it for you.
As far as me creating my own context...you said that since "they don't pay taxes" means their vote should not count the same as yours. What you may have meant was that they paid less in taxes than you, but unless they never buy anything at all they do pay taxes. That is an elitist caste system mentality. And it is the reason the equal protection clause was added to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Not to mention the 24th, which does not allow taxes to be used in any voting determination.
As I pointed out. Three times now.
Your next point was that since "they don't own land" their vote shouldn't count as much as yours. I don't own land either. Should my vote count less?
You then said "they don't have families." Did you mean your narrow view in that they most likely aren't married with children? I'm not married and don't have children. Should my vote count less than yours? Or did you mean they don't have any family? No brothers, no sisters, no parents living? That being an only child with no parents living should make a vote count less frequently?
By your rationale, elections should be decided by the number of multiple-voters who decide to turn out. That we should put it all in the hands of the married homeowners with children and minimize the significance of the single, the renters, the childless.
Hence the 14th amendment.
And since you can't read, I replied to ALL ASPECTS of your post, including the assertion that landowners should have votes with more weight. I'll QUOTE it for your convenience:
"Why isn't owning land allowed to let a vote count more? Because it violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Section 1. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection. As in all citizens count the same for voting."
And to finish off this thread, Ohio law has provisions for homeless voting!
Where do I vote?
Ohio election officials determine a person's qualifying voting address using guidelines established by Ohio law (Revised Code (R.C.) 3503.02). Where an individual votes depends on where he or she is determined by law to reside. A voter may vote from only one residence. Your voting residence is the place in which your habitation is fixed and to which, whenever you are absent, you intend to return. Your voting residence should be one you consider to be permanent, not temporary. You will not lose your voting residency in Ohio if you leave temporarily and intend to return, unless you are absent from the state for four consecutive years. (Exception: You will not lose your residency after four years if your absence from Ohio is due to your employment with Ohio or the United States government, including military service, unless you vote in, or permanently move to, another state.)
If you do not have a fixed place of habitation, but you are a consistent or regular inhabitant of a shelter or other location to which you intend to return, you may use that shelter or other location as your residence for purposes of registering to vote.
From: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/voterInformation/regToVote.aspx
What are the qualifications to register and to vote in Ohio?
You are qualified to register to vote in Ohio if you meet all the following requirements:
1. You are a citizen of the United States;
2. You will be at least 18 years old on or before the day of the general election. (If you will be 18 on or before November 4, you may vote in the primary election for candidates, but you cannot vote on issues until you are 18);
3. You will be a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days immediately before the election in which you want to vote;
4. You are not incarcerated (in prison or jail) for a felony conviction under the laws of this state, another state or the United States;
5. You have not been declared incompetent for voting purposes by a probate court; and
6. You have not been permanently disenfranchised for violations of the election laws.
You are eligible to vote in elections held in your voting precinct more than 30 consecutive days after you are duly registered to vote in this state.
I see nothing about paying taxes. Nothing about owning land. Nothing about having families. Basically, you're talking out your ass with no factual basis for doing so. Because your points are all 100% wrong and 100% foul of Ohio election laws.
Why isn't owning land allowed to let a vote count more? Because it violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Section 1. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection. As in all citizens count the same for voting.
Furthermore, any use of taxes to determine voting rights or status falls foul of the 24th amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
If a homeless person can prove citizenship, there is no legal basis to deny or devalue their vote.
I'm terribly sorry your TV cost an extra $2. You want a check for that?
Actually, you need to work on the reading comprehension. He didn't say anything about suing Apple, he talked about lawyers to PROTECT his freedom when (and clearly if) Apple were to sue him for speaking out. So, no, the Redcoats thing isn't over the top, as Apple would have attacked and he would be defending.
Further, I would love to see Apple try to convince a judge that an unsigned NDA is legally enforceable. "Ok, show me where exactly I signed. Oh, you just have a checkbox? Doesn't look like I signed anything."
(and I have been mistaken before)
Or perhaps, because they don't have the passwords they can't do this? From what I recall (and I have been mistaken before) He has all the equipment set to require a reload of the config data if there is a power cycle so they do not have access to the running config.
How, then, can they use the management functions of the equipment if they can't get to it?
Oh, I get it. They are supposed to pull the plugs (or hard reset) to regain control of the system and then try to set it back up without his help.
Actually, as a citizen of a democracy, it is my right to decide what should be law and what should not. Unfortunately my rights are being stomped on by people buying my political representatives.
If you have political representatives, you (by definition) do not live in a democracy.
The notifications work, it's the installs that fail.
No federal law covers MOUNTING only USE AND PLACEMENT. They can not forbid you to USE an external, but you do not rent the outside walls of the building and they can take repairs to the balcony out of your security deposit.
Hence, "Sure I could have an unattached antenna (say, on a pole in a 5-gal bucket of cement). But when you're north facing you're pretty much sol when it comes to reception."
It is black-and-white here. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?
A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling.
Q: Does the rule apply to condominiums or apartment buildings if the antenna is installed so that it hangs over or protrudes beyond the balcony railing or patio wall?
A: No. The rule does not prohibit restrictions on antennas installed beyond the balcony or patio of a condominium or apartment unit if such installation is in, on, or over a common area. An antenna that extends out beyond the balcony or patio is usually considered to be in a common area that is not within the scope of the rule. Therefore, the rule does not apply to a condominium or rental apartment unit unless the antenna is installed wholly within the exclusive use area, such as the balcony or patio.
Q: I live in a condominium with a balcony, but I cannot receive a signal from the satellite because my balcony faces north. Can I use the roof?
A: No. The roof of a condominium is generally a common area, not an area reserved for an individual's exclusive use. If the roof is a common area, you may not use it unless the condominium association gives you permission. The condominium is not obligated to provide a place for you to install an antenna if you do not have an exclusive use area.
Note that if any part of your antenna hangs over the edge of your balcony, you are not covered under these rules.
Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?
A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling.
That applies only to placement, not mounting. A landlord is entirely within his rights to not allow tenants to go drilling holes for mounting brackets. Best would be a satellite pole mount with u bolts around the supports so there is no drilling.
I was referring to roof-mounted antennae (as did most everyone else - sorry if I was unclear), so no he cannot be prevented from putting one on his balcony. But he can be prevented from mounting it to the wall or drilling any holes in the balcony proper in order to mount it.
Someone find him a tripod or clamped antenna mount and it'll be all good. Or he could find a low profile type of omni antenna and work with his landlord to get it put up and wired properly. Most property owners are extremely receptive to things which have the potential to increase rent value and having antennae runs available to any resident does just that.
The FCC can not tell a property owner he or she must allow an antenna. The FCC can not dictate anything in regards to property. In fact, a property owner not allowing external antennae would not fall foul of any federal law, since the only federal laws in regards to renting property are that you do not discriminate based on any of the legally protected classes.
That said, he should check into local zoning laws. But that has nothing to do with the FCC. A state or city may allow such a thing, but in most cases I would say that a tenant can not install his or her OWN antenna. The owner, manager, or maintenance staff would need to do it.
Well, I'm very glad you're offering to handle her case and pay the ongoing lawyer's fees.
Oh wait, you aren't? Then STFU.
Now I want to see you use "They'd rather kick a puppy than a full-grown pit bull. That's because they're pricks." in one of your legal pleadings.
Last I checked, that was legal and highly encouraged. Did RMS change his mind while I was working?
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=645947&cid=24603887