"(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
"(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
This makes it clear that meeting any of the conditions is enough. When you see a list like this, the word joining the final two items shows the relationship of all. This makes sense, since it's the same way in ordinary speech and writing. Another illustration from Title 17:
For purposes of section 411, a work is a "United States work" only if--
(1) in the case of a published work, the work is first published--
(A) in the United States;
(B) simultaneously in the United States and another treaty party or parties, whose law grants a term of copyright protection that is the same as or longer than the term provided in the United States;
(C) simultaneously in the United States and a foreign nation that is not a treaty party; or
(D) in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party, and all of the authors of the work are nationals, domiciliaries, or habitual residents of, or in the case of an audiovisual work legal entities with headquarters in, the United States;
If we follow your principle here, something is only a "United States work" if it is either "a, b, and c," or "d". Clearly, this would be wrong.
Hz != V... Pretty sure you're off by 50ish there.
I want to assure you that I'm not targeting you in any way- I didn't even realize it was you that I had replied to before. I do find it interesting that on both occasions you've failed to respond substantively to what I posted. I looked back at my reply to you in the EFF discussion, and I really don't think you can begin to call that abuse. I abused the idiot of an AC that replied to me a little, but he was pretty belligerent and abusive himself. (I assume that wasn't you trying to dodge a karma hit) In either case, my arguments never rested in any way on ad hominems. Also, if you want to get picky about logic, I don't need a citation from every state supreme court showing that your assertion is incorrect. The burden lies with you to show evidence supporting your argument. Further, you asked me to disprove points stronger than those you were originally making.
Blood tests, failing FSTs, officer observations of your behavior and smell... any of these things are sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
While you're not quite right about what it takes to convict in a DUI case, you are right in saying that you don't necessarily need breathalyzer results. Hence the ruling: no source code unless it is going to bear on the outcome of the case. If the test results aren't vital to determining guilt, then there is no issue. In many cases, however, they are. In such cases, it's important to know how the test works, and if there is some fundamental problem with its reliability. It's absurd to say that you don't need to know if the test is good or not, since there's other evidence. If that were true, there would be no need for the test in the first place.
According to many style manuals, the use of a comma is appropriate before "and." A quick example is here.
Aside from the remarkable overreach by campus and state police in trying to paint a student as suspicious in part because he can navigate a non-Windows computer environment, nothing cited in the warrant application could possibly constitute the cited criminal offenses. There are no assertions that a commercial (i.e. for pay) commercial service was defrauded, a necessary element of any "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" allegation. Similarly, the investigating officer doesn't explain how sending an e-mail to a campus mailing list might constitute "unauthorized access to a computer system."
That is their characterization, even if you choose to narrowly consider only this particular source and not the total content of their statements. The mistake you both make is in taking one piece of the argument and presenting it as if there is nothing more. Seriously, did they not teach critical thinking at whatever school you bought your diploma from? As for your feeble attempt to support the probable cause for the warrant, you've ignored the fact that the witness was not established as reliable. I won't try to convince you, since you clearly aren't interested in finding the truth. Rather, for the sake of those reading this exchange, I'll point to the fact that your reference to the TOC requirement is a red herring. As you point out, it's totally irrelevant to this case. Why you brought it up is still a mystery to me, unless you just wanted to cite the one case with which you're familiar. What matters is that the witness clearly fails the two-prong test required by Spinelli. There is no valid basis for reliability established, beyond "he helped us in another unspecified case with an unspecified outcome." The police simply stating "he's reliable" is obviously insufficient, and even much stronger showings have been found wanting. As for your assertion that it doesn't matter if the crimes are listed properly in the affidavit, you've constructed a straw man. The issue isn't improper citing of the statutes, but whether any of the actions alleged to be criminal are, in fact, criminal. Additionally, there must be some connection between the crime and the location searched/evidence seized. The only potentially criminal act (under any relevant statute) alleged in the warrant application is the grade-changing. There is no information, however, linking the grade-changing to the items seized or the area searched. In fact, the witness doesn't even provide the approximate date or even year when it supposedly took place. If you can read probable cause into the facts of this case, I sincerely hope you are never in a position where your legal opinions matter.
Your arrogance is evident, as is your inability to reason.