You can be working a full-time job or two to pay rent and gas, but have very little left over to feed the kids every night.
Hmm..perhaps they, they shouldn't be having kids they can't afford?
Also - abortions are expensive and increasingly hard to find. Condoms also cost money. And, no, "don't have sex" is not reasonable advice for anyone to give with any expectation that anyone anywhere will take it.
If you're unwilling to dedicate twenty years of your life constantly watching the job market, your employer's economic outlook, and your own health, then yes, you should NOT have children. You are, quite frankly, too lazy to be raising children.
There are folks that manage to do this quite successfully. I'm sorry you lost the genetic lottery, but you're not entitled to a damned thing.
See this guy - this is the guy that's surprised when the crowds bring back the guillotines. "Wait - you're not entitled to my head." "Entitled" is an interesting word in the face of social disruption. People are entitled to what they can take. If you want them not to take your life and everything you possess, then maybe give a little before they get that desperate. Any future that involves telling a significant portion of the population to get used to barely scraping by because they "lost the genetic lottery" is a future that is sure to see violent disruption at regular intervals.
And the things those machines make go into the hands of people who need them, which helps people.
Yes - assuming they have some *basic income* to afford those things the machines make.
No, she's the one who suggested hiring the female cheerleaders. With them around her male coworkers aren't doing as much so she has fewer of their mistakes to fix.
The video in the linked article?
Look for the line: "Charger prototype finding its way to Model S." It's the link to the right. Not the most clear it could have been, but it was there.
If other judges follow this precedent, it will be the death knell of civil litigation involving the internet in any way. I don't like how trolls do business, but I don't think changing the rules like this is a good idea overall.
This isn't changing the rules. This is following the rules.
See my article in the ABA's Judges Journal about how judges had been bending the rules for the RIAA. "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigation". The Judges' Journal, Judicial Division of American Bar Association. Summer 2008 edition, Part 1 of The Judges Journals' 2-part series, "Access to Justice".
Remember, Malibu Media can just change venues too and start this all over again... This judge didn't do anything worth while for you and me and opened himself up to an appeal where he obviously will be slapped. About the only thing he accomplished is getting Malibu Media out of his courtroom and off his docket, for now. Nothing else will change.
I beg to differ.
Malibu Media can't choose the venue, or the judge.
If Judge Hellerstein's decision is followed by other judges, it will be the death knell of the present wave of Malibu Media litigation.
I fully appreciate your perspective and I agree that the waters are getting pretty muddy when you start trying to tie an IP address to a person, but the issue here is the issuing of the subpoena and not letting Malibu Media pursue discovery. They must be allowed to protect their rights in civil court, and that means they must be allowed to subpoena third parties for information so they can move from "John Doe" to an actual name and in this case, that takes a subpoena from the court.
While your argument for discovery has some logic to it, it is based on a false assumption of fact : that Malibu Media, once it obtains the name and address of the internet account subscriber, will serve a subpoena on that person in an attempt to find out the name of the person who should be named as a defendant.
Malibu Media's uniform practice, once it gets the name and address, is to immediately amend the complaint to name the subscriber as the infringer/defendant and then serve a summons and amended complaint, not a subpoena, on the subscriber.
This is in every single case .
I'm not so sure I agree that this make sense...
You didn't read the judges 11 page opinion then, where he makes his reasons very clear. Among other things, the trolls claim that they need the information to take people to court, but they never do; they just abuse the courts as a cheap way to get information for their blackmail scheme. The point that an IP is not an ID is exactly the point here, because the copyright troll wouldn't have any right to the name of anyone than the copyright infringer. And the fine judge found out that these copyright trolls have in several instances just ignored court orders and have just lied to the courts.
The life of a repo man is always intense.