Ok, so "stealing" $2.5M from your ex-wife carries a 14 year prison sentence, but robbing a bank of a similar sum probably carries a smaller punishment. How exactly is that just?
How is it that refusing to testify to a court should carry a lifetime prison sentence (if the judge feels so inclined)?
Oh, it's better than that. He could have beaten her to death and gotten a lighter prison sentence.
That sounds like quite a bit of effort. Seems like by the time you get a hacksaw through a shotgun barrel you might have already changed your mind about the whole affair.
It's ALWAYS mentioned in the literature. People don't read it. Repeat after me. People don't read.
Oh, believe me, I understand this. That's why I said, "It boggles my mind that both the doctor and the pharmacist don't tell the patient..." I know the patient isn't going to read the 12 pages of 3 point font literature that come with the prescription.
If a pharmacist looked me in the eye and said, "Do not take Tylenol with this. Your liver will fail, and you will die a horrid, painful death over a period of a few days if you do," I'm pretty sure I'd listen to that.
I'd like to think most people would take that type of admonition seriously.
I think I'll need a citation for this one. I find the logic suspect that a typical recreational drug user would avoid abusing Oxys out of concern for acetaminophen overdose.
The article claims that acetaminophen and oxycodone, et al, are packaged together because they act on different pain receptors. I find this explanation to be far more believable than yours, sorry.
Most medicines are available without childproof caps, because it turns out the elderly have difficulty opening them, too. If the caps bother you so much, purchase medicines without them.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant against parents.
As the article points out, more pills = more errors. This is a stupid idea.
All of the above painkillers require a prescription. It boggles my mind that both the doctor and the pharmacist don't tell the patient, "Don't take OTC Tylenol while you're taking this, or you will die of liver failure. Take Advil instead. Read the label of anything else you take to make sure it has no Tylenol in it. When in doubt, call first to ask."
There is a reason we have the whole doctor/pharmacist/prescription system in place. It's to prevent these types of errors. All too often, pharmacists just dish out the pills and help the next person in line.
The defendant's misconduct so overshadowed the actual case as to make it irrelevant.
This was my whole point. That the judge handed the RIAA a slam-dunk victory, due to usenet.com's misconduct by taking away their Safe Harbor protection (assuming usenet.com even met the criteria, which they probably did not).
At first blush, that seemed a little unfair to me, and contrary to the intent of the statute. But I guess judges are allowed to sanction in this way. Live and learn.
Actually, the whole point of a Safe Harbor is that it is a guarantee. It says that if you meet this and that criteria, you can't be deemed liable for this or that infraction.
For example, I do this every year with my taxes. The IRS has established a Safe Harbor provision regarding owing penalties. It says that if you pay withholding/estimated taxes of 110% of your previous year's tax liability, then you will not be assessed a penalty for underwithholding.
So every year, I put in 110% of the previous year's tax bill, to the penny, even if I know I'm going to owe tens of thousands of dollars on 4/15, with the guarantee that I will not be assessed a penalty because I qualify for Safe Harbor.
Now you're talking about something else, entirely. You're saying that you don't think usenet.com met the criteria for the DMCA Safe Harbor provision. You may be right about that, but that was not my point.
My point was that usenet.com was never given the opportunity to attempt to raise that defense due to their being sanctioned. From the other responses, it appears that the judge's actions were fairly typical. But at first blush, it seemed a little unfair to me.
Now if only SCC judges would sanction my ex-tenants this way when they lie in court, I'd be golden!
I believe you. Like I said, I am not familiar with the ins and outs of the "real" legal system (but I know small claims court pretty well, being a landlord and all). I'll take your word for it that this is the usual procedure with respect to a litigant violating discovery rules.
Just seems weird to me to have a judge rewriting the law as it pertains to just one entity. Not that I don't see this all the time in small claims court, where most judges don't know the specifics of the landlord tenant act very well.
I have seen some pretty horrid rulings as a result, so now I just submit a highlighted copy of the LTA with my evidence so the judge has a chance to familiarize him or herself with the relevant statutes that will drive the ruling. Tends to reduce the incidence of weird (one might also use the word "incorrect") rulings out of left field.
The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era. If one friend bought an album, all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.
But what happened if the friend tried to make a copy for his friend, and that other friend tried to make a copy for his other friend. Surely you remember that, don't you? The quality stank so badly nobody wanted to listen to that copy, thanks to lossy analog dubbing.
With digital media, each copy is lossless, so if a friend copies a song for a friend, who copies it for another friend... even 10, 20, 1000 friends down the chain, and the music still has its original quality.
So I don't think your Dodge Dart comparison is particularly apt here. The game has changed.
Maybe it's because I'm not really involved in the legal system, but I find the way the jduge sanctioned usenet.com to be very troubling.
If you'll read the article, you'll see that usenet.com destroyed evidence and arranged for witnesses against it to be out of the country for the trial. For this, usenet.com absolutely deserves to be sanctioned.
But the judge's sanction was effectively to rewrite the DMCA. Lawmakers inserted a Safe Harbor provision into the DMCA that shielded service providers from responsibility for criminal activity of their users. When Judge Baer sanctioned usenet.com by preventing them from raising the Safe Harbor defense, he effectively rewrote the DMCA in a way that lawmakers never intended!
Without the Safe Harbor defense, usenet.com's case was lost. I'm not sure what the appropriate sanction should be for usenet.com's blatant discovery violations, but a judge rewriting a law as it applies to just one company seems wrong to me.
How does this ensure compatibility if the manufacturers don't agree to follow the USB spec? Having a micro-usb plug doesn't mean anything if the device doesn't follow the spec.
For instance, the spec says the USB port must provide 500 mA to the device. But my Palm Pre draws 1000 mA over the micro-USB port. If memory serves, blackberries draw 850 mA.
So what good is standardizing only on the plug, when what's going over the wire is nonstandard?
Property management company says: "Hmmm, first and last month's rent upfront. $250 per pet deposit for a dog and two cats. Due to your credit we will also require a double deposit, i.e. 2 months rent. With the $50 application and background fee, to move in that will be $5,800."
Depending on your state, that may not have been legal to demand that big of a deposit. Someone higher-up in the leasing office probably caught that and fixed it.
In the states where I own property, 2 months rent is the maximum security deposit, by statute.
There are definitely landlords out there who do not do credit checks. They are my favorite landlords.
I have purchased many buildings for well below market value when these landlords get themselves into trouble with problem tenants. They'll do anything for me to take their problem off their hands.
Through experience, I know exactly the type of resident I'm targeting, and my rental criteria reflect this.
FYI- landlord/tenant laws are generally enforced pretty zealously. I can't think of a single landlord/tenant law that is just ignored. Tenants' rights groups, legal aid, etc., make sure that landlords who don't follow the law get put out of business.
Different guy, but I did some research. Closest is this: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ssn/ssnchron.html "To make, under federal law, unlawful disclosure or compelling disclosure of the SSN of any person a felony, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment."
I'm having difficulty pulling up the full text of that bill online. The closest I can find is a summary here.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that this law does not turn all landlords into federal felons. That law has been on the books for 32 years, so if it make it illegal for landlords to require SSN, I think the practice would be largely abolished by now.;)
I Am A Landlord. And I would never allow this. It's just too easy to play games with something someone printed off at home.
I have had applicants show up with credit report in hand before, and I have told them that I'd be happy to go over their report with them and see if they'll qualify before they hand over their SSN, but that I'll still have to run their credit using my service to verify the accuracy.
Some still apply, some don't. No skin off my back.
The store manager was probably wrong about a SSN being required to purchase the Pre, but may have been right about needing one to activate your account in-store.
Call sprint directly at 1-800-sprint1 (verify the number at sprint.com... you shouldn't trust some random joe on the internet...) and speak with someone in sales. Tell them you want to open an account over the phone so you can buy the Pre in-store. They should have lots of options at their disposal to get your account opened without an SSN, including deposits, account spending limits, etc. They can probably run your credit with just your name/address, if you're OK with that.
Mmmm, yeah, I can't wait for a N97 North American release. Looks to me to beat the crap out of the iPhone.
I can't watch your video at the office, but everything I've read has said that between the iPhone 3GS and the N97, each has advantages and disadvantages with no clear winner.
I suppose it just depends on which features are more important to you which phone you'll like better. Both devices look pretty sweet to me.
Only game in what town? Last I checked, there are hundreds if not thousands of different cell phones available.
When the original iPhone came out, it was in a league of its own. If all the iPhone is to you is just a "cell phone" among thousands of others, then you are missing the point.
Of course, in some ways calling the iPhone is a little generous. You'll know what I'm talking about if you've ever tried to use the phone function on it.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so "stealing" $2.5M from your ex-wife carries a 14 year prison sentence, but robbing a bank of a similar sum probably carries a smaller punishment. How exactly is that just?
How is it that refusing to testify to a court should carry a lifetime prison sentence (if the judge feels so inclined)?
Oh, it's better than that. He could have beaten her to death and gotten a lighter prison sentence.
That sounds like quite a bit of effort. Seems like by the time you get a hacksaw through a shotgun barrel you might have already changed your mind about the whole affair.
It's ALWAYS mentioned in the literature. People don't read it. Repeat after me. People don't read.
Oh, believe me, I understand this. That's why I said, "It boggles my mind that both the doctor and the pharmacist don't tell the patient..." I know the patient isn't going to read the 12 pages of 3 point font literature that come with the prescription.
If a pharmacist looked me in the eye and said, "Do not take Tylenol with this. Your liver will fail, and you will die a horrid, painful death over a period of a few days if you do," I'm pretty sure I'd listen to that.
I'd like to think most people would take that type of admonition seriously.
Hmm. It's a shame shotguns have such long barrels.
I think I'll need a citation for this one. I find the logic suspect that a typical recreational drug user would avoid abusing Oxys out of concern for acetaminophen overdose.
The article claims that acetaminophen and oxycodone, et al, are packaged together because they act on different pain receptors. I find this explanation to be far more believable than yours, sorry.
What's so wrong with a good, 'ol firearm discharged to the temple?
Most medicines are available without childproof caps, because it turns out the elderly have difficulty opening them, too. If the caps bother you so much, purchase medicines without them.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant against parents.
As the article points out, more pills = more errors. This is a stupid idea.
All of the above painkillers require a prescription. It boggles my mind that both the doctor and the pharmacist don't tell the patient, "Don't take OTC Tylenol while you're taking this, or you will die of liver failure. Take Advil instead. Read the label of anything else you take to make sure it has no Tylenol in it. When in doubt, call first to ask."
There is a reason we have the whole doctor/pharmacist/prescription system in place. It's to prevent these types of errors. All too often, pharmacists just dish out the pills and help the next person in line.
The defendant's misconduct so overshadowed the actual case as to make it irrelevant.
This was my whole point. That the judge handed the RIAA a slam-dunk victory, due to usenet.com's misconduct by taking away their Safe Harbor protection (assuming usenet.com even met the criteria, which they probably did not).
At first blush, that seemed a little unfair to me, and contrary to the intent of the statute. But I guess judges are allowed to sanction in this way. Live and learn.
Actually, the whole point of a Safe Harbor is that it is a guarantee. It says that if you meet this and that criteria, you can't be deemed liable for this or that infraction.
For example, I do this every year with my taxes. The IRS has established a Safe Harbor provision regarding owing penalties. It says that if you pay withholding/estimated taxes of 110% of your previous year's tax liability, then you will not be assessed a penalty for underwithholding.
So every year, I put in 110% of the previous year's tax bill, to the penny, even if I know I'm going to owe tens of thousands of dollars on 4/15, with the guarantee that I will not be assessed a penalty because I qualify for Safe Harbor.
Now you're talking about something else, entirely. You're saying that you don't think usenet.com met the criteria for the DMCA Safe Harbor provision. You may be right about that, but that was not my point.
My point was that usenet.com was never given the opportunity to attempt to raise that defense due to their being sanctioned. From the other responses, it appears that the judge's actions were fairly typical. But at first blush, it seemed a little unfair to me.
Now if only SCC judges would sanction my ex-tenants this way when they lie in court, I'd be golden!
I believe you. Like I said, I am not familiar with the ins and outs of the "real" legal system (but I know small claims court pretty well, being a landlord and all). I'll take your word for it that this is the usual procedure with respect to a litigant violating discovery rules.
Just seems weird to me to have a judge rewriting the law as it pertains to just one entity. Not that I don't see this all the time in small claims court, where most judges don't know the specifics of the landlord tenant act very well.
I have seen some pretty horrid rulings as a result, so now I just submit a highlighted copy of the LTA with my evidence so the judge has a chance to familiarize him or herself with the relevant statutes that will drive the ruling. Tends to reduce the incidence of weird (one might also use the word "incorrect") rulings out of left field.
The music industry and RIAA seemed to live through that era. If one friend bought an album, all his friends would get a cassette copy if they wanted it.
But what happened if the friend tried to make a copy for his friend, and that other friend tried to make a copy for his other friend. Surely you remember that, don't you? The quality stank so badly nobody wanted to listen to that copy, thanks to lossy analog dubbing.
With digital media, each copy is lossless, so if a friend copies a song for a friend, who copies it for another friend... even 10, 20, 1000 friends down the chain, and the music still has its original quality.
So I don't think your Dodge Dart comparison is particularly apt here. The game has changed.
Now mow your fucking lawn, pops.
Maybe it's because I'm not really involved in the legal system, but I find the way the jduge sanctioned usenet.com to be very troubling.
If you'll read the article, you'll see that usenet.com destroyed evidence and arranged for witnesses against it to be out of the country for the trial. For this, usenet.com absolutely deserves to be sanctioned.
But the judge's sanction was effectively to rewrite the DMCA. Lawmakers inserted a Safe Harbor provision into the DMCA that shielded service providers from responsibility for criminal activity of their users. When Judge Baer sanctioned usenet.com by preventing them from raising the Safe Harbor defense, he effectively rewrote the DMCA in a way that lawmakers never intended!
Without the Safe Harbor defense, usenet.com's case was lost. I'm not sure what the appropriate sanction should be for usenet.com's blatant discovery violations, but a judge rewriting a law as it applies to just one company seems wrong to me.
How does this ensure compatibility if the manufacturers don't agree to follow the USB spec? Having a micro-usb plug doesn't mean anything if the device doesn't follow the spec.
For instance, the spec says the USB port must provide 500 mA to the device. But my Palm Pre draws 1000 mA over the micro-USB port. If memory serves, blackberries draw 850 mA.
So what good is standardizing only on the plug, when what's going over the wire is nonstandard?
Property management company says: "Hmmm, first and last month's rent upfront. $250 per pet deposit for a dog and two cats. Due to your credit we will also require a double deposit, i.e. 2 months rent. With the $50 application and background fee, to move in that will be $5,800."
Depending on your state, that may not have been legal to demand that big of a deposit. Someone higher-up in the leasing office probably caught that and fixed it.
In the states where I own property, 2 months rent is the maximum security deposit, by statute.
Cite a law, please. I'll not hold my breath.
There are definitely landlords out there who do not do credit checks. They are my favorite landlords.
I have purchased many buildings for well below market value when these landlords get themselves into trouble with problem tenants. They'll do anything for me to take their problem off their hands.
Through experience, I know exactly the type of resident I'm targeting, and my rental criteria reflect this.
FYI- landlord/tenant laws are generally enforced pretty zealously. I can't think of a single landlord/tenant law that is just ignored. Tenants' rights groups, legal aid, etc., make sure that landlords who don't follow the law get put out of business.
I Am A Landlord.
Of course it's not required to provide landlords with an SSN, and of course it's not required for a landlord to accept an applicant.
For my rental criteria, no SSN/ITIN = rejection. Simple as that.
Different guy, but I did some research. Closest is this:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ssn/ssnchron.html
"To make, under federal law, unlawful disclosure or compelling disclosure of the SSN of any person a felony, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment."
I'm having difficulty pulling up the full text of that bill online. The closest I can find is a summary here.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that this law does not turn all landlords into federal felons. That law has been on the books for 32 years, so if it make it illegal for landlords to require SSN, I think the practice would be largely abolished by now. ;)
Next?
Even a landlord cannot legally ask people for their SSNs anymore and if he turns you down because you refuse to give it to him, you can report him.
Please cite the US law that stipulates a landlord can't require an SSN.
I won't be holding my breath.
I Am A Landlord. And I would never allow this. It's just too easy to play games with something someone printed off at home.
I have had applicants show up with credit report in hand before, and I have told them that I'd be happy to go over their report with them and see if they'll qualify before they hand over their SSN, but that I'll still have to run their credit using my service to verify the accuracy.
Some still apply, some don't. No skin off my back.
The store manager was probably wrong about a SSN being required to purchase the Pre, but may have been right about needing one to activate your account in-store.
Call sprint directly at 1-800-sprint1 (verify the number at sprint.com... you shouldn't trust some random joe on the internet...) and speak with someone in sales. Tell them you want to open an account over the phone so you can buy the Pre in-store. They should have lots of options at their disposal to get your account opened without an SSN, including deposits, account spending limits, etc. They can probably run your credit with just your name/address, if you're OK with that.
Good luck!
So in addition to Palm and Apple competing, their fan boys will be competing too? Can't we all just get along?
What can I say? It's the natural progression of things.
At this point, I'm only responding to replies. If you want me to shut up, get away from the reply button. ;)
Mmmm, yeah, I can't wait for a N97 North American release. Looks to me to beat the crap out of the iPhone.
I can't watch your video at the office, but everything I've read has said that between the iPhone 3GS and the N97, each has advantages and disadvantages with no clear winner.
I suppose it just depends on which features are more important to you which phone you'll like better. Both devices look pretty sweet to me.
Only game in what town? Last I checked, there are hundreds if not thousands of different cell phones available.
When the original iPhone came out, it was in a league of its own. If all the iPhone is to you is just a "cell phone" among thousands of others, then you are missing the point.
Of course, in some ways calling the iPhone is a little generous. You'll know what I'm talking about if you've ever tried to use the phone function on it. ;)