Talk about rentiers! That "sale" is only a lease for the exclusive right to use a given portion of the entire radio spectrum - the government thinks they still own and control all radio frequencies, period. Aaaaand we're back to that old fight of licensing versus an actual sale. Damn, but we do live in interesting times.
While the two above answers hold some water, the real answer is that the FAA is all butthurt because their brother agency (the FCC) didn't share any of the loot from the sale of that spectrum.
Koby, expect to see this a whole lot more, cause I'm sure others will pick it up and run with it as well, just as I will post it every time I see your name come up.
You can't just watch Trump giving Putin a reacharound ... and then call him a man who doesn't pay his debts.
Oh yes I can. But it wasn't a reacharound, it was Putin giving #45 a Dirty Sanchez!
I was more referring to those who came to him and offered to work for him, as in one or more lawyers who solicited his business. He never gave them the promised cash, check or money order. IOW, he welched on his debts. Ditto for those he called into his service, such as staff at his many properties, etc. - no moolah for them either. Ditto for his fake-reality show, many of those people were stiffed. On and on and on....
Fun Fact: No one knows, nor can they anyone count that high, just how many lawsuits #45 currently faces, or has faced in the past, for unpaid compensation. 'Struth!
If he hired workers who believed in him just like his alleged "base", he wouldn't just save cash ('cause he never paid them anyways), he'd be getting money from them just so they could say that they worked for "God". Given that scenario, it's likely that none of his concerns would've had to close.
<My personal opinion>
Personally, I think we should come up with something like a debtor's prison, only for asshelmets who refuse to pay their debts when they certainly could (and not for actually poor people who physically can't pay their debts). I'd pay good money, damnably good money, for the right to name the first one of these. Of course, you can already guess that I'd name it after the first inmate, #45 himself. You could say that he rightly owned that property!
</opinion>
The first thing I would've asked this clown was "Did your parents give you first and last names? Did they use these names throughout your childhood? And did you answer to either of those names because you knew you were being singled out from every one else..... i.e. identified?"
If you get a deer-in-the-headlights look, or more likely, a ration of "I'm in charge, don't question me!", tell the people who hired this asshat that he's incompetent. (Being as this was online, substitute "company" for "he" or "him".)
Didn't he completely screw over no less than Guilliani...
The better question would be, whom has he actually paid for services rendered? I'd bet that if got to the pearly gates and St. Peter asked him to point out at least one personal trait that he had executed flawlessly, BOB (the Bumbling Orange Buffoon) would proudly proclaim that he never paid anybody for their service to him. Ever.
(Court orders notwithstanding, those were always aimed at his shell companies like the Foundation, the University, etc. He never paid anything out of his own personal checkbook.)
I for one am glad that every time #45 utters anything, it makes the rest of us look that much smarter.
But I do have to admit that I'm not smart enough to figure out how he keeps finding lawyers to write up (and submit!) his delusion of the week to the courts. Perhaps he gets them as the "surprise" in every Cracker Jacks box?
If I were India in particlar, I'd simply tell the patent holders a to go fly kite, then tell my own medical people to get on the stick. Picking up the pieces in a legal battle after the fact, that's not out of the realm of possibility for a country as large as India.
I don't know if S.A. is large enough that they could withstand a protracted legal battle after the fact, but since lives are at stake, I'd take the chance anyways, were I them.
Copyright law everywhere needs to be modified such that in the rare case where lives and the public safety are endangered, such laws are automatically suspended until reinstated by a court, with competent reasoning based on scientifically accepted proof. i.e., no emergency injunctions against such suspensions.
No, Stephen, you targeted "communications", and that's not their intent at all. Their intent is to poison any and all communications outlets, bringing the content of those media down to the lowest possible level of sewer-dom. You could say (and should have said) that this law, and comparable ones from other states, is intelligent conversation-hostile. The do want to see communications, but they want it to contain as little as possible intelligent conversation amongst the public.
Always remember, an informed public is dangerous to its government. The coroallary being, a split public, some portion of which has been informed by dis- and mis-information, is the best thing a government could wish for.
Remember too, that ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times". We sure are living under that curse right now, aren't we though.
I think company's have a right to check how many users or pcs have the program installed...
No, the should not have any such rights. They already have the means to politely inquire, via an email or a snail-mail letter, as to how many seats are actually using the product versus the number of licenses. If they don't like the answers, that's too bad. They'll just have to wait for a disgruntled ex-employee to rat them out.
The upshot here is that your expressed wish would set a bad precedent. Imagine if the RIAA had the "legal right and power" to come into your home and count how many physical albums/cds you have on the shelf, versus how many MP3s are loaded onto your computer, or phone, or what-have-you. Ditto for the MPA and your movie collection.
Well, first, anyone just showing up on my doorstep with a demand like the above had best be prepared to argue with my two favorite lawyers, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
Second, any ex parte motion to gain "legal" access to my home is going to be met with a top-flight lawyer asking the signing judge why I wasn't afforded a say in the matter at bar.
Next, while contesting that motion, I'd politely ask the judge how they've proven that I have NOT stopped using said software, and deleted it from my computer. (cue the pregnant pause....) For extra credit, I'd start giving the judge a lesson on how to use iptables. 15 or 20 seconds of glazed eyes later, I'd be outta there.
And finally..... I'm not too sure just how many "reasonable people" in this country would consider that using a software package is somehow equitable with an unplanned home invasion.
... what you may or may not put in a contract is prior restraint
... what can even be said in a contract
Errr, no. A contract is not a matter or means of speech, it's an agreement between two parties, and it should be obvious that such is not a place for stating opinions. The law most definitely precludes certain terms and/or conditions from being inserted into any contract for the simple reason that the government is tasked with preventing fraud. Unless you can properly counter the following maxim of law, then it stands as stated thusly:
A contract or other agreement between two parties shall be fair and equitable to both parties, and shall be enforceable by both parties.
Obviously there are contracts written every day that do not seem to meet those criteria, but if a party felt wronged, and took it into court, they just might be surprised at what a "disinterested" party would think of the contract. While it is true that America as a nation has an ever-growing proportion of imbeciles, the law simply must assume that all Americans are equally capable of reading a proposed contract, and deciding for themselves it if is fair and equitable.
I can't speak for the laws of other countries beside the USA, things might be different in those lands.
tl;dr:
Set a limit on how much you "afford" to lose. Any contract you enter into for more than that amount, spend some quality time with a lawyer.
Oh, come on, the least you could've said was to tell them "Let me give you this bucket of sand and a mallet. Do you need instructions on what to do with them?"
The court says it is not here to judge as it lays down its judgment.
I had this happen to me, long ago. The judge said that his hands were tied, that the lower court had nailed it down tight. I was much too young then, and brashly asked him "Oh, so your job is to simply rubber-stamp everything that crosses your bench?" Cost me a hundred smackers for contempt of court. Worth every penny just to hear the snickering from the gallery.
The proper question would've been (can't say "should've", the Fifth has already claimed an inability to see alternate possibilities) to ask "What action would Officer Tran have taken had there been no running boards on the vehicle?".
On the post: Baltimore Police Department Sued For Seizing Phones, Cash, And Jewelry From Crime Victims Recovering From Shootings
Re:
IOW, "Baltimore, the northern-most city within a Southern state". Is that about right?
On the post: FAA Blocks 5G Deployments Over Safety Concerns Despite No Actual Evidence Of Harm
Talk about rentiers! That "sale" is only a lease for the exclusive right to use a given portion of the entire radio spectrum - the government thinks they still own and control all radio frequencies, period. Aaaaand we're back to that old fight of licensing versus an actual sale. Damn, but we do live in interesting times.
On the post: FAA Blocks 5G Deployments Over Safety Concerns Despite No Actual Evidence Of Harm
Re:
While the two above answers hold some water, the real answer is that the FAA is all butthurt because their brother agency (the FCC) didn't share any of the loot from the sale of that spectrum.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re:
Dick Clark much? ;) But seriously, good parody.
For the younger set: the song "It's My Party" was sung by Leslie Gore, and released in 1963. She did this at age 16, no less!
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re: Credebility Loss
Seeing as this bunch of replies are aimed at Koby, I've got the ultimate rush for him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ityjblbczI
Koby, expect to see this a whole lot more, cause I'm sure others will pick it up and run with it as well, just as I will post it every time I see your name come up.
On the post: Donald Trump Says He's Going To Sue The Pulitzer Committee If They Don't Take Away The NY Times And WaPo Pulitzers
Re: Re: Re:
Then whaddya think of my proposal: BOB, the Bumbling Orange Buffoon?
On the post: Biden Administration Intervenes In Donald Trump's Silly Lawsuit Against Twitter To Defend Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh yes I can. But it wasn't a reacharound, it was Putin giving #45 a Dirty Sanchez!
I was more referring to those who came to him and offered to work for him, as in one or more lawyers who solicited his business. He never gave them the promised cash, check or money order. IOW, he welched on his debts. Ditto for those he called into his service, such as staff at his many properties, etc. - no moolah for them either. Ditto for his fake-reality show, many of those people were stiffed. On and on and on....
Fun Fact: No one knows, nor can they anyone count that high, just how many lawsuits #45 currently faces, or has faced in the past, for unpaid compensation. 'Struth!
If he hired workers who believed in him just like his alleged "base", he wouldn't just save cash ('cause he never paid them anyways), he'd be getting money from them just so they could say that they worked for "God". Given that scenario, it's likely that none of his concerns would've had to close.
<My personal opinion>
Personally, I think we should come up with something like a debtor's prison, only for asshelmets who refuse to pay their debts when they certainly could (and not for actually poor people who physically can't pay their debts). I'd pay good money, damnably good money, for the right to name the first one of these. Of course, you can already guess that I'd name it after the first inmate, #45 himself. You could say that he rightly owned that property!
</opinion>
On the post: 'Anonymized Data' Is A Gibberish Term, And Rampant Location Data Sales Is Still A Problem
Re:
The first thing I would've asked this clown was "Did your parents give you first and last names? Did they use these names throughout your childhood? And did you answer to either of those names because you knew you were being singled out from every one else..... i.e. identified?"
If you get a deer-in-the-headlights look, or more likely, a ration of "I'm in charge, don't question me!", tell the people who hired this asshat that he's incompetent. (Being as this was online, substitute "company" for "he" or "him".)
On the post: Biden Administration Intervenes In Donald Trump's Silly Lawsuit Against Twitter To Defend Section 230
Re: Re: Re:
The better question would be, whom has he actually paid for services rendered? I'd bet that if got to the pearly gates and St. Peter asked him to point out at least one personal trait that he had executed flawlessly, BOB (the Bumbling Orange Buffoon) would proudly proclaim that he never paid anybody for their service to him. Ever.
(Court orders notwithstanding, those were always aimed at his shell companies like the Foundation, the University, etc. He never paid anything out of his own personal checkbook.)
On the post: Biden Administration Intervenes In Donald Trump's Silly Lawsuit Against Twitter To Defend Section 230
I for one am glad that every time #45 utters anything, it makes the rest of us look that much smarter.
But I do have to admit that I'm not smart enough to figure out how he keeps finding lawyers to write up (and submit!) his delusion of the week to the courts. Perhaps he gets them as the "surprise" in every Cracker Jacks box?
On the post: Instagram Founder's Instagram Locked When One Person Convinced Instagram He Had Died
Re:
No, code monkeys are just naturally stupid, they don't need any help or encouragement.
On the post: Is Protecting Copyright More Important Than Saving Lives During The COVID-19 Pandemic?
If I were India in particlar, I'd simply tell the patent holders a to go fly kite, then tell my own medical people to get on the stick. Picking up the pieces in a legal battle after the fact, that's not out of the realm of possibility for a country as large as India.
I don't know if S.A. is large enough that they could withstand a protracted legal battle after the fact, but since lives are at stake, I'd take the chance anyways, were I them.
Copyright law everywhere needs to be modified such that in the rare case where lives and the public safety are endangered, such laws are automatically suspended until reinstated by a court, with competent reasoning based on scientifically accepted proof. i.e., no emergency injunctions against such suspensions.
On the post: Wherein The Copia Institute Tells The Eleventh Circuit That Florida's SB 7072 Law Violates Our Rights
Re:
No, Stephen, you targeted "communications", and that's not their intent at all. Their intent is to poison any and all communications outlets, bringing the content of those media down to the lowest possible level of sewer-dom. You could say (and should have said) that this law, and comparable ones from other states, is intelligent conversation-hostile. The do want to see communications, but they want it to contain as little as possible intelligent conversation amongst the public.
Always remember, an informed public is dangerous to its government. The coroallary being, a split public, some portion of which has been informed by dis- and mis-information, is the best thing a government could wish for.
Remember too, that ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times". We sure are living under that curse right now, aren't we though.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re:
No, the should not have any such rights. They already have the means to politely inquire, via an email or a snail-mail letter, as to how many seats are actually using the product versus the number of licenses. If they don't like the answers, that's too bad. They'll just have to wait for a disgruntled ex-employee to rat them out.
The upshot here is that your expressed wish would set a bad precedent. Imagine if the RIAA had the "legal right and power" to come into your home and count how many physical albums/cds you have on the shelf, versus how many MP3s are loaded onto your computer, or phone, or what-have-you. Ditto for the MPA and your movie collection.
p.s. I tried Madonna once, but I didn't inhale.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Well, first, anyone just showing up on my doorstep with a demand like the above had best be prepared to argue with my two favorite lawyers, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
Second, any ex parte motion to gain "legal" access to my home is going to be met with a top-flight lawyer asking the signing judge why I wasn't afforded a say in the matter at bar.
Next, while contesting that motion, I'd politely ask the judge how they've proven that I have NOT stopped using said software, and deleted it from my computer. (cue the pregnant pause....) For extra credit, I'd start giving the judge a lesson on how to use iptables. 15 or 20 seconds of glazed eyes later, I'd be outta there.
And finally..... I'm not too sure just how many "reasonable people" in this country would consider that using a software package is somehow equitable with an unplanned home invasion.
On the post: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?
Re:
Errr, no. A contract is not a matter or means of speech, it's an agreement between two parties, and it should be obvious that such is not a place for stating opinions. The law most definitely precludes certain terms and/or conditions from being inserted into any contract for the simple reason that the government is tasked with preventing fraud. Unless you can properly counter the following maxim of law, then it stands as stated thusly:
Obviously there are contracts written every day that do not seem to meet those criteria, but if a party felt wronged, and took it into court, they just might be surprised at what a "disinterested" party would think of the contract. While it is true that America as a nation has an ever-growing proportion of imbeciles, the law simply must assume that all Americans are equally capable of reading a proposed contract, and deciding for themselves it if is fair and equitable.
I can't speak for the laws of other countries beside the USA, things might be different in those lands.
tl;dr:
Set a limit on how much you "afford" to lose. Any contract you enter into for more than that amount, spend some quality time with a lawyer.
On the post: Hey North Face! Our Story About You Flipping Out Over 'Hey Fuck Face' Is Not Trademark Infringement
Re:
Sorry, but that's the second lesson. The 1st lesson is "Always get the money up front".
On the post: Hey North Face! Our Story About You Flipping Out Over 'Hey Fuck Face' Is Not Trademark Infringement
Re: You were too nice
Oh, come on, the least you could've said was to tell them "Let me give you this bucket of sand and a mallet. Do you need instructions on what to do with them?"
On the post: Fifth Circuit Awards Immunity To Cop Who Thought It Would Be A Good Idea To Jump On A Moving Car And Kill The Driver
Re:
I had this happen to me, long ago. The judge said that his hands were tied, that the lower court had nailed it down tight. I was much too young then, and brashly asked him "Oh, so your job is to simply rubber-stamp everything that crosses your bench?" Cost me a hundred smackers for contempt of court. Worth every penny just to hear the snickering from the gallery.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Awards Immunity To Cop Who Thought It Would Be A Good Idea To Jump On A Moving Car And Kill The Driver
The proper question would've been (can't say "should've", the Fifth has already claimed an inability to see alternate possibilities) to ask "What action would Officer Tran have taken had there been no running boards on the vehicle?".
Next >>