"if i'm not mistaken, one needs to block nyt.js. i do this on firefox and do not see the mtr.js which i can peruse on chrome, which doesn't have the most fabulous noscript."
Try NotScripts?
NotScripts gives you a high degree of "NoScript" like control over what javascript, iframes, and plugins runs in your browser to increase security and lower the CPU usage. It is useful to help mitigate some attacks like certain cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities and drive by downloads by blocking the third-party content before it even runs with it's default deny policy
"Whether or not ex parte civil in rem seizures pursuant to forfeiture proceedings violate due process is an issue that you can research."
This is why I hate lawyers, they start throwing Latin around like that makes everything OK. Until they have a court order they have not followed due process, the end.
Because you did not say anything meaningful? All you did was say that you have to examine the whole patent application (NOTE: Mike linked to it so we could examine it ourselves). Mike never said that only the claims just that only the first was relevant to the lawsuit.
In addition the history you mentioned in this case IS irrelevant, why, because this patent should have NEVER gone through, it is obvious to anyone with a brain.
I honestly don't care about what you drive, as far as "n intellectually honest debate about this patent requires far more than the analysis presented here.", well duh! That is what the internets are for moron, Mike presents his opinion and some links to relevant information, we look at what he said, DO OUR OWN RESEARCH, and agree or disagree. Then if we want we write a response, hopefully including REFERENCES to back up our opinions.
If you want to try to support a silly patent here at least do yourself a favor and back up your statements with facts & cite your sources, otherwise all you get is scorn, sorry.
Ditto for me (I'm in Oregon BTW), never signed a ticket. The ticket is essentially an indictment, you still have to be arraigned & possibly go to court. The initial court date on the ticket is for your arraignment, you can then plead 'Guilty', 'Nolo contendere' (AKA no-contest), or 'Not-guilty'. For the first two of those they are effectively the same, you usually get a fine and move on. The third option is 'Not-guilty', once you enter your plea it moves to the trial phase, same as in any criminal court, where the state has to prove their case and you have the opportunity to defend yourself.
I have not had many tickets(4 or 5 in ~20 years driving I think) so my experience may differ from some. The one ticket I got that I was not guilty of (the cop said I was doing 80 in a 55, I was doing 58) I fought and won because the cop could not show proper calibration of the radar gun (the judge actually tossed a couple of other tickets written by that cop because I brought it up), for the others, I was speeding, I got caught, I talked to the judge & paid the fine. No big deal.
The point here is that in ANY criminal proceeding, from a lowly traffic ticket to the largest capital murder case, you ABSOLUTELY ARE innocent till you get a trial and are found guilty, or enter a plea (other than Not-guilty) and accept responsibility. This is what due process is about and these domain seizures (without a trial or EVEN a warrant) are without a doubt in my mind violations of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as First Amendment free speech protections.
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
14th Amendment (Excerpted):"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"
Now as to the specific case of this Spanish company, it is not necessarily a case of Constitutional protection as much as a jurisdictional problem. Exactly what where these people thinking? Exactly how do they justify this? A United States Federal Agency has no jurisdiction in Spain, and as much as they might like to believe otherwise, The United States of America DOES NOT own The Internet.
On the post: Winklevi Won't Give Up; Appealing The Ruling That They Have To Accept 'Just' $160 Million
Re: Re:
On the post: Conde Nast Sent $8 Million To A Scammer After A Single Email
Re: Re: Re: Irony?
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: (Mickey Mouse porn)
"Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions."
Case in point http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mickey+Mouse+Porn
On the post: NY Times In Denial: Only Teens & The Unemployed Will Game The Paywall
Re: Re: Wow
On the post: NY Times In Denial: Only Teens & The Unemployed Will Game The Paywall
Re: Re: Re:
Try NotScripts?http://optimalcycling.com/other-projects/notscripts/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detai l/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Lawyers Who Love Loopholes Ignoring Serious Constitutional Issues In Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you!
On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Mistake
This is why I hate lawyers, they start throwing Latin around like that makes everything OK. Until they have a court order they have not followed due process, the end.
On the post: Lawsuit Claims Miller High Life Loyalty Program Infringes Patent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In addition the history you mentioned in this case IS irrelevant, why, because this patent should have NEVER gone through, it is obvious to anyone with a brain.
I honestly don't care about what you drive, as far as "n intellectually honest debate about this patent requires far more than the analysis presented here.", well duh! That is what the internets are for moron, Mike presents his opinion and some links to relevant information, we look at what he said, DO OUR OWN RESEARCH, and agree or disagree. Then if we want we write a response, hopefully including REFERENCES to back up our opinions.
If you want to try to support a silly patent here at least do yourself a favor and back up your statements with facts & cite your sources, otherwise all you get is scorn, sorry.
On the post: It's Back: FBI Announcing Desire To Wiretap The Internet
Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re:
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Kudos, as usual, to DH.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Porn lawyers with porn names...
My thoughts exactly!
On the post: NBC Fires Guy Who Posted The Bryant Gumbel/Katie Couric 'What Is Internet' Video
Re: Re: Re: Re: More telling then damning.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Damn
On the post: FiveFingers Blocks Right Finger -- Just Asking For Middle One
Re: Re: One word ... "Idiots"
GreaseMonkey/TamperMonkey + userscripts.org
On the post: FiveFingers Blocks Right Finger -- Just Asking For Middle One
Re: Re: AJ
On the post: FiveFingers Blocks Right Finger -- Just Asking For Middle One
Re: One word ... "Idiots"
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/501/re-enable-right-click-when-web-pages-turn-it-of f/
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have not had many tickets(4 or 5 in ~20 years driving I think) so my experience may differ from some. The one ticket I got that I was not guilty of (the cop said I was doing 80 in a 55, I was doing 58) I fought and won because the cop could not show proper calibration of the radar gun (the judge actually tossed a couple of other tickets written by that cop because I brought it up), for the others, I was speeding, I got caught, I talked to the judge & paid the fine. No big deal.
The point here is that in ANY criminal proceeding, from a lowly traffic ticket to the largest capital murder case, you ABSOLUTELY ARE innocent till you get a trial and are found guilty, or enter a plea (other than Not-guilty) and accept responsibility. This is what due process is about and these domain seizures (without a trial or EVEN a warrant) are without a doubt in my mind violations of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as First Amendment free speech protections.Now as to the specific case of this Spanish company, it is not necessarily a case of Constitutional protection as much as a jurisdictional problem. Exactly what where these people thinking? Exactly how do they justify this? A United States Federal Agency has no jurisdiction in Spain, and as much as they might like to believe otherwise, The United States of America DOES NOT own The Internet.
{/RANT}
Next >>