No, someone working for the cops is an agent of the cops, and gets some additional responsibilities. Informants are a little different, but informants are dealt with under the whole reasonable expectation of privacy part of the 4th Amendment.
We had a symposium on this issue, and a lawyer talked from the plaintiff's side. Much of their theory dealt with the length of the cable, based purely on a statutory reading. While I understand he has a duty to attempt to apply the statute in his client's best interests, his construction made little sense. Still, he had to rely on that construction to get around Sony. Essentially, it is legal for me to time shift in my house. So why can't I put my time shift device outside of my house, say in a warehouse with a lot of other time shift devices? And what if I make those time shift devices virtual devices on a single server? His point was that moving the device outside of my house was the difference-it became a transmission. He could not provide a length of cable that would trigger that definition, though. And, of course, he was speaking for his client at the time. I will be curious to see how this case works out if SCOTUS does take it. The statutes need some re-writing, honestly.
I participated in this as a Cadet in 2001. We used a variety of operating systems, including Windows 2000, Solaris, Linux, and Mac OS9. Even back then, the Linux server and desktop client had by far the greatest uptime. Well, except for me, as I was attempting to rebuild the Windows server after they had taken it down, yet again.
Re:What do you get combining Apple + gaming compan
on
Apple Eyeing EA?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
EA has a market cap of 6.5 billion. Apple has over 20 billion in cash and short term investments. Even with a hefty control premium, they could easily acquire EA. If they were only interested in a majority share, so that they could force more consideration of their platforms, it's even easier.
The WSJ story talked about how Apple had designed a variant already, but were unhappy that so much design was being sold to other companies. It looks like they want to design their own extension of the ARM and gain a real competitive advantage. Certain aspects include better power consumption, network interface, handwriting recognition, and more horsepower. There is some speculation that it will also bleed over to the desktop design. Maybe they are getting tired of using commodity hardware and want to differentiate themselves from Dell.
Wow. Just wow. When I used influence in my post, I was using it in a particular sense, covered in both the OED and Black's, that was clear in context. The fact that you had to use an adjective in front of the word to change its meaning should clue you in. I was also referring to price setting, not bundling, which are two entirely different concepts in US antitrust law. If you had read the opinion, you would know that bundling is what got MS in trouble. There was little to no discussion on price. As far as how courts use influence, you may want to be careful about assuming courts have any single meaning of a word in mind at any time. They rarely do. Anyway, I'll quit now.
Influence does not mean dictate. As I clearly explained in my post, influence by offering the same product directly at a lower price. I'm also curious if you ever read the court of appeals opinion? Or are you parroting summaries from the internet?
No. The harm is generally the conversion of consumer surplus into monopoly rent. It has nothing to do with any rights in any Hofeldian or legal sense. It has more to do with the economic theory of monopolies and efficient markets. And, depending on your theory of rights (the one you seem to be trying to assert was valid under Lochner, but has been frowned upon since the 1940's), there will always be a conflict somewhere. Congress decided that the more efficient solution in this case is the best solution, and that's why we look at the harm to consumers.
It seems equally absurd that MS can't influence the price between the store and end consumer. They can certainly do it indirectly by selling through their website directly to consumers. So why not allow them to coordinate broad promotional rates?
I don't understand what the theory of harm here is. MS was obviously attempting to capture more of its monopoly rent, but there are other ways to do so that aren't illegal, so I'm not sure what point this particular law serves. Why is it bad for retailers and suppliers to set prices? Don't large internet retailers help set market prices in a de facto sense, anyway? If MS sells the suite directly from its website, doesn't that cap what a retailers can charge? European antitrust law is confusing. I wonder what the additional compliance costs are? Is Germany's desire to protect small retailers worth how those costs?
In the United States, anti-trust law usually will look at harm to consumers. Harm to competition is good. Of course, a monopoly makes things a little different. Even with a monopoly and predatory pricing, though, you have to show how that will monetize the harm later on down the road. Predatory pricing is rarely effective because it is so hard to make more money in the long run. This case isn't predatory pricing per se, but I think the theory of harm is generally the same. Anyways, European countries generally have a very different view of antitrust law and the US does, and are much more willing to use it to accomplish abstract concepts of fairness and social justice, as opposed to regulating a market for the benefit of consumers.
I stop cold turkey for awhile, so that my tolerance isn't so high. I like getting some effect from one cup, and I can definitely build up quite a tolerance. If I can find some time where nothing critical is due, I'll go without and take tylenol to fight the symptoms. Drinking lots of water seems to help, too.
It was a 12B6, so they didn't rule on anything as a matter of fact, just a matter of law, right? This ruling was just that a legal claim had been stated, but there hasn't been any discovery or fact finding, has there?
The problem is more complicated...
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There are critics out there for Linux. But how many of them offer quality criticism, instead of complaining? And there are developers out there who are willing to listen to quality criticism, but how many of the few critics out there comment on any specific piece of software that goes into a complete Linux system? Both sides could do more- critics could write white papers with suggested corrections. Developers could take the "Linux sux" as an indication that they need a top down audit of their project. But both of those solutions are asking too much of either side. There should be better practices on both sides. And of course, this all ignores the good work on both sides that are being done, where there is constructive criticism and receptive developers. You can always use more of both, so there is never enough of either.
for Congress re-writing the law in a comprehensive matter. If Congress does so, courts have to defer to the new laws. With the USPTO doing it, every rule change will be heavily scrutinized by courts, and it will take years of start and stop rule making to come up with an ad hoc, disjointed rule set. But at least someone is doing something.
It's good to see that the White House thinks cyber security is important enough to move it into the Whitehouse, where they will be closer to the President and better prepared for power struggles. On the other, wasn't DHS supposed to cut through all the bullshit of turf wars to make us secure, or at least more so? If they can't do so, what justifies the new cabinet position and the accompanying increase in government size?
I'm really enjoying Safari 3, but I can't use IE 8, so I don't know how they compare. However, for the things I actually use a browser for, I'm not sure IE 8 matches Safari. Speed, standards compliance, etc. I like some of the new things Safari offers, like the preview of your most visited sites when you open a new tab, but for me the most important things are speed and stability. Obviously, using a beta I'm giving up a bit of stability, but I love how fast it works. Maybe when MS changes its rendering engine there will be a more accurate comparison.
Science proved out in 3-5 years. Then how long to get manufacturing to commercial dependability and costs? Once it is on the market, how long until it is more than a high priced novelty? And, the most important question, will battery technology be good enough to power a shape shifting phone for a day or two?
I don't believe they are asking this because they want to kill it. I think it's because they want to provide it with a more defined purpose. Some clarity and consistency in spending.
There is too much for the president to handle for him to be in that role. That's why they created cabinet positions, OPM, and the like. The executive branch is too large for the president to be the main political player. Besides, you need someone playing the political games when the President is doing figure head stuff. Someone with some savvy needs to be down in the weeds why the president is glad-handing.
Not really. Someone without political savvy won't see the games until it is too late. I hope that he does well, and that his experiences encourage this kind of meritocracy in the future. However, it is far easier to appoint a technocrat to the cabinet position and surround him with brilliant academics. Let them provide him with the best courses of action, and let him go through the stupid political games to accomplish those. Of course, that requires a president who is willing to force their secretaries to listen to the academics. But if you are willing to appoint an academic to a cabinet post, then surely you are willing to make a cabinet secretary listen to his advisors.
That's the problem with the exclusionary rule. Except in rare cases where Section 1983 applies, the only people who have standing to challenge a bad warrant or an unconstitutional search are bad actors. If innocent people could take action and get damages for unconstitutional searches, then the police would be much more careful. If the police never take the evidence to court, there is no real action you can take; even if they pull you naked out of bed or ruin a party in front of guests, possibly ruining your reputation.
Slashdot Mirror
No, someone working for the cops is an agent of the cops, and gets some additional responsibilities. Informants are a little different, but informants are dealt with under the whole reasonable expectation of privacy part of the 4th Amendment.
He WASN'T talking for his client at the time. Sorry.
We had a symposium on this issue, and a lawyer talked from the plaintiff's side. Much of their theory dealt with the length of the cable, based purely on a statutory reading. While I understand he has a duty to attempt to apply the statute in his client's best interests, his construction made little sense. Still, he had to rely on that construction to get around Sony. Essentially, it is legal for me to time shift in my house. So why can't I put my time shift device outside of my house, say in a warehouse with a lot of other time shift devices? And what if I make those time shift devices virtual devices on a single server? His point was that moving the device outside of my house was the difference-it became a transmission. He could not provide a length of cable that would trigger that definition, though. And, of course, he was speaking for his client at the time. I will be curious to see how this case works out if SCOTUS does take it. The statutes need some re-writing, honestly.
I participated in this as a Cadet in 2001. We used a variety of operating systems, including Windows 2000, Solaris, Linux, and Mac OS9. Even back then, the Linux server and desktop client had by far the greatest uptime. Well, except for me, as I was attempting to rebuild the Windows server after they had taken it down, yet again.
EA has a market cap of 6.5 billion. Apple has over 20 billion in cash and short term investments. Even with a hefty control premium, they could easily acquire EA. If they were only interested in a majority share, so that they could force more consideration of their platforms, it's even easier.
The WSJ story talked about how Apple had designed a variant already, but were unhappy that so much design was being sold to other companies. It looks like they want to design their own extension of the ARM and gain a real competitive advantage. Certain aspects include better power consumption, network interface, handwriting recognition, and more horsepower. There is some speculation that it will also bleed over to the desktop design. Maybe they are getting tired of using commodity hardware and want to differentiate themselves from Dell.
Wow. Just wow. When I used influence in my post, I was using it in a particular sense, covered in both the OED and Black's, that was clear in context. The fact that you had to use an adjective in front of the word to change its meaning should clue you in. I was also referring to price setting, not bundling, which are two entirely different concepts in US antitrust law. If you had read the opinion, you would know that bundling is what got MS in trouble. There was little to no discussion on price. As far as how courts use influence, you may want to be careful about assuming courts have any single meaning of a word in mind at any time. They rarely do. Anyway, I'll quit now.
There is a limit to what people are willing to pay, even for a monopoly product. Monopoly rents aren't infinite.
Influence does not mean dictate. As I clearly explained in my post, influence by offering the same product directly at a lower price. I'm also curious if you ever read the court of appeals opinion? Or are you parroting summaries from the internet?
No. The harm is generally the conversion of consumer surplus into monopoly rent. It has nothing to do with any rights in any Hofeldian or legal sense. It has more to do with the economic theory of monopolies and efficient markets. And, depending on your theory of rights (the one you seem to be trying to assert was valid under Lochner, but has been frowned upon since the 1940's), there will always be a conflict somewhere. Congress decided that the more efficient solution in this case is the best solution, and that's why we look at the harm to consumers.
Right, I read the article. That still doesn't answer the question, who got hurt? What is the economic theory underlying that statute?
It seems equally absurd that MS can't influence the price between the store and end consumer. They can certainly do it indirectly by selling through their website directly to consumers. So why not allow them to coordinate broad promotional rates?
I don't understand what the theory of harm here is. MS was obviously attempting to capture more of its monopoly rent, but there are other ways to do so that aren't illegal, so I'm not sure what point this particular law serves. Why is it bad for retailers and suppliers to set prices? Don't large internet retailers help set market prices in a de facto sense, anyway? If MS sells the suite directly from its website, doesn't that cap what a retailers can charge? European antitrust law is confusing. I wonder what the additional compliance costs are? Is Germany's desire to protect small retailers worth how those costs?
In the United States, anti-trust law usually will look at harm to consumers. Harm to competition is good. Of course, a monopoly makes things a little different. Even with a monopoly and predatory pricing, though, you have to show how that will monetize the harm later on down the road. Predatory pricing is rarely effective because it is so hard to make more money in the long run. This case isn't predatory pricing per se, but I think the theory of harm is generally the same. Anyways, European countries generally have a very different view of antitrust law and the US does, and are much more willing to use it to accomplish abstract concepts of fairness and social justice, as opposed to regulating a market for the benefit of consumers.
I stop cold turkey for awhile, so that my tolerance isn't so high. I like getting some effect from one cup, and I can definitely build up quite a tolerance. If I can find some time where nothing critical is due, I'll go without and take tylenol to fight the symptoms. Drinking lots of water seems to help, too.
It was a 12B6, so they didn't rule on anything as a matter of fact, just a matter of law, right? This ruling was just that a legal claim had been stated, but there hasn't been any discovery or fact finding, has there?
There are critics out there for Linux. But how many of them offer quality criticism, instead of complaining? And there are developers out there who are willing to listen to quality criticism, but how many of the few critics out there comment on any specific piece of software that goes into a complete Linux system? Both sides could do more- critics could write white papers with suggested corrections. Developers could take the "Linux sux" as an indication that they need a top down audit of their project. But both of those solutions are asking too much of either side. There should be better practices on both sides. And of course, this all ignores the good work on both sides that are being done, where there is constructive criticism and receptive developers. You can always use more of both, so there is never enough of either.
for Congress re-writing the law in a comprehensive matter. If Congress does so, courts have to defer to the new laws. With the USPTO doing it, every rule change will be heavily scrutinized by courts, and it will take years of start and stop rule making to come up with an ad hoc, disjointed rule set. But at least someone is doing something.
It's good to see that the White House thinks cyber security is important enough to move it into the Whitehouse, where they will be closer to the President and better prepared for power struggles. On the other, wasn't DHS supposed to cut through all the bullshit of turf wars to make us secure, or at least more so? If they can't do so, what justifies the new cabinet position and the accompanying increase in government size?
I'm really enjoying Safari 3, but I can't use IE 8, so I don't know how they compare. However, for the things I actually use a browser for, I'm not sure IE 8 matches Safari. Speed, standards compliance, etc. I like some of the new things Safari offers, like the preview of your most visited sites when you open a new tab, but for me the most important things are speed and stability. Obviously, using a beta I'm giving up a bit of stability, but I love how fast it works. Maybe when MS changes its rendering engine there will be a more accurate comparison.
Science proved out in 3-5 years. Then how long to get manufacturing to commercial dependability and costs? Once it is on the market, how long until it is more than a high priced novelty? And, the most important question, will battery technology be good enough to power a shape shifting phone for a day or two?
I don't believe they are asking this because they want to kill it. I think it's because they want to provide it with a more defined purpose. Some clarity and consistency in spending.
There is too much for the president to handle for him to be in that role. That's why they created cabinet positions, OPM, and the like. The executive branch is too large for the president to be the main political player. Besides, you need someone playing the political games when the President is doing figure head stuff. Someone with some savvy needs to be down in the weeds why the president is glad-handing.
Not really. Someone without political savvy won't see the games until it is too late. I hope that he does well, and that his experiences encourage this kind of meritocracy in the future. However, it is far easier to appoint a technocrat to the cabinet position and surround him with brilliant academics. Let them provide him with the best courses of action, and let him go through the stupid political games to accomplish those. Of course, that requires a president who is willing to force their secretaries to listen to the academics. But if you are willing to appoint an academic to a cabinet post, then surely you are willing to make a cabinet secretary listen to his advisors.
That's the problem with the exclusionary rule. Except in rare cases where Section 1983 applies, the only people who have standing to challenge a bad warrant or an unconstitutional search are bad actors. If innocent people could take action and get damages for unconstitutional searches, then the police would be much more careful. If the police never take the evidence to court, there is no real action you can take; even if they pull you naked out of bed or ruin a party in front of guests, possibly ruining your reputation.