(Posting from AU, some of the strictest gun control in the world here)
I've seen a lot of discussion about responsible vs irresponsible, or identifying "problem" individuals, as opposed to removing guns from circulation.
What I find bizarre is that some people consider that removing guns is dangerous, but are quite willing to let the government make a case-by-case judgement call about whether someone is "suitable".
Even honest, legitimate governments can't manage to make these kinds of case-by-case judgements without lots of egregious stuff-ups.
A dishonest government (which is supposedly the point of retaining the guns, and of course arguably all governments are dishonest anyway) couldn't be trusted to make a call on whether someone is a "risk" or not before they've done something. To open this option is just crazy.
Ban the guns, it's safer than letting the government ban innocent people.
Apple’s request is rooted in Motorola’s contracts with ETSI and IEEE to offer its essential patents on FRAND terms. Dkt. No. 194 (Summary Judgment Order of Aug. 10, 2012) at 46. Motorola’s commitment to the SSOs does not create a contractual obligation on Apple to accept the rate that Motorola offers, let alone to blindly accept any such offer and write a blank check before it even knows exactly what that offer is. The Court should therefore determine whether Motorola was required to offer the particular rate to Apple, not whether Apple had to accept that rate....
D. Although It Is Not So Obligated, Apple Is Willing To Pay the FRAND Rate of Not More Than $1 Per Unit Going Forward
Apple has publicly spoken about the necessity for setting a rational and reciprocal framework for assessing the FRAND rate on wireless declared standards-essential portfolios. In fact, Apple has been a leader in adhering to FRAND policies for licensing cellular standards-essential patents on rates proportional to the share of standards patents and on common bases that actually embody the standardized technology. Apple’s litigation conduct has been fully consistent with its public statements regarding the proper approach to evaluating the FRAND rate. And as an industry leader, Apple conducts itself responsibly and owns up to its own public statements.
Although Apple does not believe that Motorola may now seek an order compelling Apple to pay the rate this Court sets, Apple would be willing to pay a Court-ordered FRAND rate of less than or equal to $1 per covered product on the going-forward basis. This is the rate that Apple believes is appropriate in these circumstances for Motorola’s portfolio of cellular and WiFi essential patents. It is also consistent with the reasoned framework Apple has publicly articulated, and the only rate that can be supported by the evidence at this trial. Because neither party is asking this Court to draft a fully executable cross-license with all the necessary terms, Apple does expect that further negotiation will need to take place before the parties actually come to an agreement, covering topics such as the FRAND value of Apple’s cross-license, the role of Apple’s existing license to Motorola’s portfolio through Qualcomm, and the treatment of past sales.
Generally the tone here is "Give us something less than $1 and we'll *think* about paying that. Anything else, forget about it"
If is impossible to get a representative sample or voters because no one knows who is going to vote on the day
See - this problem goes away if voting is compulsory. The census bureau tells you what the demographics of the general population are, and you poll to that. We here in Oz figured that out a looong time ago
Seriously though - the US now has a law essentially making taking out health insurance mandatory (with caveats) but it won't pass a law making voting mandatory...?
What letter of the law did they not follow? They had a link, they had the statements required, in 14 pt font.
They actually put it in 14px font, which is not the same as 14pt (usually anyway). It's smaller.
They significantly twisted the court-proposed wording, substantially changing the implied meaning
They also designed the front page so that no matter how big your monitor, the "hero" image would resize to push the link to the notice off the bottom of the page. It could be argued that this in fact means in a sense it is no longer on the front page (where a page is defined as visual division of the page into large logical units)
Apple tried to get smart and it backfired.
Variables don't; constants aren't.