The Al Gore thing is the exact opposite of this topic.
He never said he invented the Internet. "Conservative" pundits looking to make fun of him made that up. What he said is he was on the committee that approved DARPA funding that led to research on interconnected networks and eventually the Internet.
So HERE we have a guy who DID NOT invent email saying he did.
In the Gore case we have a guy who DIDN'T invent something NOT saying he invented it, but the Republican Party talking points, ever a bastion of twisting anything just so we can get back to 1972 says he says he did.
In 1984 Judge Greene presided over the breakup of The Bell System into a variety of companies including long-distance telephone services provider AT&T, research arm Bell Laboratories ("Bell Labs"), and the regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs, colloquially "Baby Bells").
Like pieces of Terminator 2 rushing to re-form as the monster they started out as, these companies have been buying and selling competitors, rivals, foes, and friends.
Even today CenturyLink, a company that includes the former US West territory and several others, announced its upcoming purchase of Level3 Communications. Level3 competes with CenturyLink in offering fiber-optic carrier services and telephone services. It got big enough by buying among others Time Warner Telecom (not to be confused with Time Warner that AT&T wants or Time Warner Cable that nobody wants) and Xspedius -- two market competitors.
In time that Terminator 2 will be back and we'll have one big national telco and one big national cable company, and the ultimate duopoly will be complete...
...unless regulators or citizen lobbying stops it.
It's not a fucking TV show. This discussion is about the purported hero (not the TV show) :)
I hope that explains it to you. You like to swear but can't understand simple English so may I suggest you go work for a Verizon call center in a third world country? Practice saying "I am trying to help you now." Feels good, doesn't it?
There's some misconception here that a car manufacturer is responsible for what the buyer does with the vehicle. That is not true today and it's not true tomorrow.
If someone wants to steal a car that has nothing to do with the manufacturer.
If someone wants to commit a crime using the car that has nothing to do with the manufacturer.
This absurd notion that the manufacturer retains RESPONSIBILITY or LIABILITY for actions of others after sale is ludicrous and flies in the face of hundreds of years of law.
It's not "most likely Tesla". Tesla sold the car and is not involved in its operation.
With the exception of idiots suing gun manufacturers, the maker of a SHARP KNIFE is not responsible for anyone's death or nicks. Nor is Tesla responsible for what you do with their car.
I completely agree -- I thought he might have meant a law about fucking but didn't want to presume. There are enough of those already in the southern states... and... TD covers what happens if you don't get informed consent... and... ;-)
This is a bit off-topic but it brings up two other issues preventing "driverless cars" from being part of our current society:
1. Insurance policies are issued to _drivers_ based on the driver's record, age, location, and other actuarial factors. If the driver is not a factor, then I don't see an insurance company issuing a policy "to a car."
2. Traffic citations are issued to _drivers_ based on their actions while in operation of that motor vehicle. I don't see law enforcement willing to attempt to stop and ticket a driverless car.
Based on these simple things I'm not expecting to see driverless cars in operation on public roadways until both paradigms are resolved. Given that the insurance lobby and the law-enforcement lobby are amongst the largest in this country I don't expect that anytime in this decade OR the next.
SO this discussion about using one's Tesla for ridesharing purposes... should be constrained to "while one is in the driver's seat of one's Tesla."
Disclosure: I don't own a Tesla car. Disclosure2: I sure wish I did :D :D :D
Reading other people's minds is easy... when they have one.
I'm sorry that I didn't magically intuit that of the many references to laws in the original article or the TD article, YOUR comment was about THAT one.
Bless your heart for pointing that out! You're so cute. Next time you should consider maybe pointing out which law you mean instead of just saying "the fucking law", which could be interpreted to be a comment on "the law" in general.
Thank you for taking time away from your busy highschool day to chat!
Begged question - mfg liability on a per-use basis?
I like how you're approaching it but you've begged the question of *WHETHER* the manufacturer of a motor vehicle has any liability in its eventual use. The many lawsuits about brakes failing, accelerator pedals depressing, airbags with shrapnel, etc. are all based on a systemic failure, not a PER-USE failure.
I strongly suspect that the begged question, if asked, would be answered that NO, the manufacturer's liability does not change nor shift based on the PER-USE function of the vehicle. Rather, the liability is based on the overall function-as-expected/described/required-bylaw of the vehicle.
For that reason I think Tesla has no different liability whether the vehicle is used to carry your kids to the ballgame, your spouse to her office, or you to the store to buy groceries... or to take your drunk friend home... or to take someone else's drunk friend home for pay.
Post-sale conditions are in direct opposition to the first-sale doctrine (17 USC 109). See this article that talks about how that relates to IP (which is what Tesla is attempting to use to do this): http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_068798.pdf
A motor vehicle sold in the United States is directly subject to the first-sale doctrine. That also means that the purchaser of said vehicle can safely ignore the post-sale conditions.
If Tesla were to limit or downgrade its software based on post-sale condition violations I happily predict their loss in court. It's not just a *stupid* strategy, a *closed* strategy, but also one that's in violation of established law.
Ehud P.S. I'm not a lawyer. I offer opinions on the law.
The Defendant can always file a counterclaim. If they do so before the Plaintiff dismisses the case, the Plaintiff is unable to unilaterally dismiss the case. The P must either get a stipulation from the D agreeing to it, or file a motion and get the Court to do so despite D objecting.
So ... if Donald Trump is stupid enough to sue the NYT, the NYT should --instead of waiting it out-- file some counterclaims. Those will survive a Trump attempt at dismissal, and he WILL be subject to Rule 26 disclosure.
Unfortunately that discovery would not be published, and would likely be subject to mostly being under seal. However, it sure would be fun knowing he's going to fight hard not to be grilled... and for a change... it will cost HIM.
How exactly is it that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation has jurisdiction where a guy attacked people with a knife and was killed by police?
Why is it that NOBODY CAN CHALLENGE their lack of jurisdiction, but if the situation was reversed, the first thing the government files is a challenge saying nobody has standing to sue them?
On the post: Actual Creators Of Email Not At All Happy The Fake Creator Of Email Got Paid For His Bogus Claim
Re: Easy to dispell
He never said he invented the Internet. "Conservative" pundits looking to make fun of him made that up. What he said is he was on the committee that approved DARPA funding that led to research on interconnected networks and eventually the Internet.
So HERE we have a guy who DID NOT invent email saying he did.
In the Gore case we have a guy who DIDN'T invent something NOT saying he invented it, but the Republican Party talking points, ever a bastion of twisting anything just so we can get back to 1972 says he says he did.
E
On the post: AT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger Approved
Harold Greene is rolling over in his grave
Like pieces of Terminator 2 rushing to re-form as the monster they started out as, these companies have been buying and selling competitors, rivals, foes, and friends.
Even today CenturyLink, a company that includes the former US West territory and several others, announced its upcoming purchase of Level3 Communications. Level3 competes with CenturyLink in offering fiber-optic carrier services and telephone services. It got big enough by buying among others Time Warner Telecom (not to be confused with Time Warner that AT&T wants or Time Warner Cable that nobody wants) and Xspedius -- two market competitors.
In time that Terminator 2 will be back and we'll have one big national telco and one big national cable company, and the ultimate duopoly will be complete...
...unless regulators or citizen lobbying stops it.
Ehud
On the post: Another Story Of A 'Fake' Brilliant Inventor? Is 'Scorpion Walter O'Brien' A Real Computer Security Genius?
Inability to read English strikes again
It's not a fucking TV show. This discussion is about the purported hero (not the TV show) :)
I hope that explains it to you. You like to swear but can't understand simple English so may I suggest you go work for a Verizon call center in a third world country? Practice saying "I am trying to help you now." Feels good, doesn't it?
Best regards,
E
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
Been there, done that
We called her "Mom."
E
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
The car manufacturer only sells cars
If someone wants to steal a car that has nothing to do with the manufacturer.
If someone wants to commit a crime using the car that has nothing to do with the manufacturer.
This absurd notion that the manufacturer retains RESPONSIBILITY or LIABILITY for actions of others after sale is ludicrous and flies in the face of hundreds of years of law.
Ehud
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
Re: Liability? Hmm ...
With the exception of idiots suing gun manufacturers, the maker of a SHARP KNIFE is not responsible for anyone's death or nicks. Nor is Tesla responsible for what you do with their car.
E
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
Liability? naw...
That's not a liability thing. That's an anti-competitive thing.
E
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
A fucking law
Thanks for the laugh!
E
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
Insurance and tickets
1. Insurance policies are issued to _drivers_ based on the driver's record, age, location, and other actuarial factors. If the driver is not a factor, then I don't see an insurance company issuing a policy "to a car."
2. Traffic citations are issued to _drivers_ based on their actions while in operation of that motor vehicle. I don't see law enforcement willing to attempt to stop and ticket a driverless car.
Based on these simple things I'm not expecting to see driverless cars in operation on public roadways until both paradigms are resolved. Given that the insurance lobby and the law-enforcement lobby are amongst the largest in this country I don't expect that anytime in this decade OR the next.
SO this discussion about using one's Tesla for ridesharing purposes... should be constrained to "while one is in the driver's seat of one's Tesla."
Disclosure: I don't own a Tesla car.
Disclosure2: I sure wish I did :D :D :D
Ehud
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
Reading other people's minds is easy... when they have one.
Bless your heart for pointing that out! You're so cute.
Next time you should consider maybe pointing out which law you mean instead of just saying "the fucking law", which could be interpreted to be a comment on "the law" in general.
Thank you for taking time away from your busy highschool day to chat!
Ehud
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
A concept completely fucking lost on TD
You wrote:
> ...it is just easier to use the fucking law...
What fucking law are you referring to?
E
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
Begged question - mfg liability on a per-use basis?
I strongly suspect that the begged question, if asked, would be answered that NO, the manufacturer's liability does not change nor shift based on the PER-USE function of the vehicle. Rather, the liability is based on the overall function-as-expected/described/required-bylaw of the vehicle.
For that reason I think Tesla has no different liability whether the vehicle is used to carry your kids to the ballgame, your spouse to her office, or you to the store to buy groceries... or to take your drunk friend home... or to take someone else's drunk friend home for pay.
Respectfully,
Ehud
On the post: Come On Elon! Tesla Stupidly Bans Owners From Using Self-Driving Teslas For Uber
Post-sale conditions
A motor vehicle sold in the United States is directly subject to the first-sale doctrine. That also means that the purchaser of said vehicle can safely ignore the post-sale conditions.
If Tesla were to limit or downgrade its software based on post-sale condition violations I happily predict their loss in court. It's not just a *stupid* strategy, a *closed* strategy, but also one that's in violation of established law.
Ehud
P.S. I'm not a lawyer. I offer opinions on the law.
On the post: Internet Privacy Week: Sign The Bill Of Rights & Raise Money For The EFF
Re: Oh Please...
I'm in favor of the concepts and ideals. I'm with you on the efficacious nature of this move.
E
On the post: ACLU Dumps Docs On Social Media Monitoring Firm Geofeedia; Social Media Platforms Respond By Dumping Geofeedia
Thank you
Thank you, Tim!
E
On the post: As Donald Trump Ramps Up Threats To Sue Newspapers, A Reminder Of Why We Need Free Speech Protections
Please!... no emails!
This is not the right forum for your opinions on other forums.
E
On the post: As Donald Trump Ramps Up Threats To Sue Newspapers, A Reminder Of Why We Need Free Speech Protections
Re: Let us connect some dots.......
Donald Trump is running for President of the United States.
William Clinton is not.
If you'd like to indict someone because they're married to the wrong person, you have a sorry understanding of the concepts of justice or the law.
Mike did say to keep this from being political, so I'll stop there.
Donald is running for president and he has damaged his own reputation. What ANY OTHER PERSON DOES OR DOES NOT DO is irrelevant to that discussion.
Best
E
On the post: As Donald Trump Ramps Up Threats To Sue Newspapers, A Reminder Of Why We Need Free Speech Protections
Legal Strategy
The Defendant can always file a counterclaim. If they do so before the Plaintiff dismisses the case, the Plaintiff is unable to unilaterally dismiss the case. The P must either get a stipulation from the D agreeing to it, or file a motion and get the Court to do so despite D objecting.
So ... if Donald Trump is stupid enough to sue the NYT, the NYT should --instead of waiting it out-- file some counterclaims. Those will survive a Trump attempt at dismissal, and he WILL be subject to Rule 26 disclosure.
Unfortunately that discovery would not be published, and would likely be subject to mostly being under seal. However, it sure would be fun knowing he's going to fight hard not to be grilled... and for a change... it will cost HIM.
E
On the post: FBI Tests The Waters On Another Attempt To Force Apple To Unlock An iPhone
JurisMyDiction
Why is it that NOBODY CAN CHALLENGE their lack of jurisdiction, but if the situation was reversed, the first thing the government files is a challenge saying nobody has standing to sue them?
E
On the post: Details Of Charges Against Backpage Execs For 'Pimping' Look Totally Bogus
Awesome writeup
Awesome writeup.
My hat is off to you, Sir!
E
Next >>