It's well established that EULAs are not legally binding.
EULAs have been repeatedly upheld in U.S. courts. Do you have a case citation from a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the past decade that supports your position?
Yeah, the repeal of Glass-Steagal is a figment of your imagination. The 2004 relaxing of the SEC's net capital rule never happened. CFMA 2000 isn't what allowed credit default swaps setting up a domino effect of capital and credit. Yeah man. Keep dreaming.
Oh, and stop trolling message boards with your misinformation.
I'm not quite sure what you were objecting to, but GGP is incorrect, and GP's criticism is almost correct. Judges will emphatically not void a contract for insufficient consideration in most cases. Even with illusory promises, judges trip all over themselves to find a way to construe them as non-illusory -- plea bargained sentence recommendations are, in some jurisdictions, a good example.
A contract of adhesion isn't automatically void. On the other hand, perhaps one of the strongest consumer protections is that ambiguity in a contract is, by default, construed against the drafter.
Where did you get your law degree?
"If BSD hadn't forked, it would likely be the most predominate x86 *nix, rather than an almost irrelevant footnote in IT history."
BSD is the most predominant x86 *nix.
State courts tend not to rule on federal questions of first impression if they can help it. Nobody likes being overturned.
"Under our State Constitution, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a GPS device to monitor an individual's whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause."
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/may09/53opn09.pdf
You may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari from the highest state court, so if there is a federal issue involved they may address it. But even so, certiorari is unlikely, and overruling even moreso, especially when there's an independent basis in state law.
"officer observations of your behavior and smell... [is] sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt." (emphasis added)
I never said odor was sufficient in and of itself. To clear up the confusion that may exist, lemme rewrite in lawyerese
Any of the following may be sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt: (a) blood tests showing a Blood Alcohol Content above statutory limits; (b) failing a properly-administered battery of Field Sobriety Tests; or (c) officer observations of (i) behavior; and (ii) smell.
The chances of conviction drop, yes, but the evidence is nevertheless (as a matter of law) sufficient. Since the discussion was about what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means, and not about prosecutor/defense tactics, I think it's safe to say that my portrayal was not in fact how you read it. Also, while some FSTs really suck, I believe some jurisdictions have legislative findings concerning others. In such states, for example, a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, administered by an officer with a brief training course in optical observation, is admissible and - combined with other FST behavior - sufficient for conviction. Now, if I were a defense attorney I would of course try to discredit the officer -- have him act out in the well how he administered the test, point out if he holds the light too close or too far away, and so on -- but that doesn't change the fact that a properly-administered one is good evidence as a matter of law, and a jury verdict based on that and not much else is unlikely to be overturned.
Also, a minor point I'd like to address just to preempt it from becoming an issue: most jurisdictions now have different kinds of drunk-driving crimes. For example, in my state, OWI (operating while intoxicated) means you were operating with a BAC above 0.08, while DWI (driving while impaired) means you were drunk enough to have noticeably worse driving skill. For purposes of this discussion, I'm referring to the whole drunk-driving statutory regime as "DUI" -- what code number the prosecutor charges under is mostly irrelevant to the standard of proof.
Regardless of the AC's tone in the EFF article, his(/her?) position was mine, and you suggested that only a paralegal without a college education could agree with that position. Besides, even abuse shouldn't beget abuse.
you're not quite right about what it takes to convict in a DUI case...
I strongly disagree. If you honestly think differently, give me citations to cases from each of the 50 state supreme courts, or a citation to a U.S. Supreme Court case, stating either (a) that no reasonable jury could convict based on blood tests; or (b) that no reasonable jury could convict based on any combination of field sobriety tests and observed behavior.
Try to do it without an ad hominem this time (you've been belligerent and abusive in prior exchanges, notably the EFF article).
If the machine is faulty, they are not "drunks."
Um. Wrong. Are you saying there were no drunk drivers before breath machines? Whether or not someone was drunk driving doesn't depend on the machine. Blood tests, failing FSTs, officer observations of your behavior and smell... any of these things are sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt." A possible or hypothetical doubt you have because you don't have a machine reading, or fingerprints, or a DNA sample isn't reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one based on reason and the facts in evidence.
If the prosecution has addressed each element of the crime, and for each element you have no reason to doubt it, then conviction is proper.
Thanks EFF for being a liar. The police have probably cause to seize the computers, not because they are black with white font (zOMG!) but because a reliable named witness told them the student was engaged in changing grades for other students.
From the warrant application: "[The witness] advised Officer Eng that Mr. Calixte has changed grades for other students by accessing the Boston College computer system.... It should be noted that [the witness] is not only a named witness to these allegations but also a reliable witness in another investigation which he brought to our attention.... [The witness] reported to me that he has observed Mr. Calixte hack into the B.C. grading system that is used by professors to change grades for students...."
Also, emails were sent out from an anonymous Yahoo! account claiming that the witness (who is roommates with the suspect) was gay. The IP address of the client sending the Yahoo! message corresponded to a computer whose MAC address was registered to a computer whose computer name had only been used on the computer of one student at B.C. -- the suspect.
Clearly, there's probable cause enough here for a search warrant.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
(by which i mean, textually. it only says that congress cant establish a single religion, or prohibit the exercise of a religion. that's not to say that such a right hasn't been read into the first amendment, just that as an academic textual matter freedom to be atheist would seem to more appropriately be a generalized liberty).
This also includes the right to practice no religion at all.
No, actually it doesn't. The substantive components of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments' due process clauses, however...
That's logically impossible. Your own testimony is evidence, so "no evidence" can only happen in your bizarre little fantasy world. And since breach-of-contract claims are civil in nature, the standard of proof is a mere preponderance of the evidence. In short, a judge or jury would only have to find you marginally more trustworthy than the other guy.
Hi Bruce. A point of clarification: by "BSD-licensed command shell" I mean one that is only BSD-licensed. Rereading my earlier post, I see that I didn't convey this clearly, and for my miscommunication I apologize.
The GPL provides that a person "may convey a work based on the Program
It seems therefore impossible for the author of a command shell using the readline library to license the work exclusively under a BSD-type license. They are, according to the GPL, required to distribute the entire command shell under the GPL. It is true that if the author of the command shell is the sole author, he or she may dual-license the work under both a BSD-style license and the GPL. However, the GPL does impose some additional requirements on authors that cannot be ignored. Particularly, I'm thinking of the costs in media distribution or bandwidth or hosting to make source available under GPL v. 3 Sec. 6. The total effect is to make it harder than necessary for people to write Free software that uses GPL code.
And please don't swear. It lowers the level of discourse. Thank you.
You're right. Ignorance of the law is no defense. But the laws are accessible to the average person. And your point about amendment is irrelevant. I don't know where you got your information from, but it's very, very wrong. You never need to turn to unofficial sources for the current law.
"An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. An assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment." Cal. Pen. Code. 240-241 available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=240-248
Tell me exactly how you figure you have to spend "hours per line" figuring out what that says?
Bruce, I'm sorry but your comment doesn't respond to my point. It would be impossible to legally distribute a BSD-licensed command shell which uses the readline library, for example (unless you got specific permission from the authors of the readline library). People who say that BSD and GPL are "compatible" only mean that GPL'd projects can incorporate BSD code; they don't consider code moving in the other direction. Saying that they're "compatible" glosses over the one-way nature of the relationship.
Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.
