10/26/2008
From ProCd v. Zeidenberg, U.S. Court of Appeals 7th Cir. 1996.
Talking about the enforceability of shrinkwrap software licenses:
"Only a minority of sales take place over the counter, where there are boxes to peruse....Much software is ordered over the Internet by purchasers who have never seen a box. Increasingly software arrives by wire. There is no box; there is only a stream of electrons, a collection of information that includes data, an application program, instructions, many limitations ("MegaPixel 3.14159 cannot be used with BytePusher 2.718"), and the terms of the sale."
Nice. I wonder if Justice Easterbrook ever checks his email? 10/12/2008
*Note: The following is not a defense of any particular behavior, but rather a discussion of a misuse of a particular word*
A recent entry in a friend's blog talked about the relationship between the drinking age and the voting age. One of the commentors made a connection between refraining from drinking and being "moral." I see "moral" and "morality" misused a lot in this way, and it has become a minor pet peeve of mine. It seems especially poignant in discussions involving religious people and athiests.
The error of statements like the above is that as morals are based on rules of acceptable conduct, ALL individuals have a "morality". ALL individuals have conceptions of, for example, whether it is right or wrong to kill another or to steal etc. These individual rules are all based on some sort of personally held ethics. The differences lie in the source of these personally held ethics. Religious people tend to use scripture (Bible, Tora, etc). Non-religious look to other sources (philosophers, "natural law", etc). The point is that "morality" and "morals" still exist.
The error that many commit is when the terms are used in such a way to imply either "good" or "bad" behavior (Example: "That was not moral" or "That individual lacks morality"). "Morality" is, by definition, neutral. It merely refers to an individual's views of "right" and "wrong". Towards that end, it is a fallacy to point to another who does not share that group's "morality" and declare that their views lack morals. If there are no shared views and shared standards, then there is no basis on which to base the morality.
The exception to all of the above, obviously, is with the law. Laws are theoretically codifications of what constitutes baseline "proper conduct" within a given society. Obviously the limited example given here (consuming alcohol) refers to conduct that is otherwise legal. (Of course, if one's moralty could also be strictly based on legality and nothing else. Then I suppose there would be no issue). 10/7/2008
The format for tonight's town hall debate has been announced. Included in the restrictions are gems like:
1. All questions will be submitted a head of time.
2. Follow-up questions from the asking audience member and the moderator are not allowed.
3. After the person asks the question, their microphone will get turned off.
4. Cameras will be allowed to show the audience member when they're asking the question, but they won't show the reaction to the answer.
etc, etc.
So basically this is going to be two candidates getting up there and delivering mini-versions of their pre-canned stump speaches. One blog I saw earlier today called it "the equivalent of two parallel press conferences." That just about sums it up.
I'm surprised that McCain would go along with this. The town hall format is his favorite style and it's where he seems to feel the most comfortable. Plus the campus that they'll be on tonight (Belmont University) is a conservative religious school. I'm guessing it will be a McCain friendly crowd with softball questions all around (town hall debates use questions from "normal people", so the inquiries to the candidates tend to be notoriously easy).
Tonight is crucial for McCain. Momentum is shifting against him in the battleground states. He has to come out and shake things up. It's probably worth breaking a debate "rule" or two as well. This is his format. If he has any hope of winning he needs to cash in on it. 10/5/2008
After all that political drama over the bailout last week, there are rumblings now that the targeted financial institutions may not actually participate. Seems the big complaints are 1) The cap on executive salaries and 2) They don't like the increased regulations that accepting the money would entail.
So the financial institutions go to their buddy, SEC head and former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson, and ask for some help in the form of an injection of public funds. Did they expect that it would be given with nothing asked in return? Of course, there is also the possibility that this is all merely a bargaining ploy to sweeten the deal. Only time will tell.
It probably shouldn't come as a surprise that those whose instutional greed was a leading cause of some of this are now trying to protect their personal compensation packages. Then again I don't know what they're complaining about. Unless the Fed. has some sort of cool contract negating power we don't know about, the cap would only apply to successors, not to the current executives.
----
A friend commented that there are now Dunkin Donuts popping up in Dallas. I hadn't really thought about it, but it does seem that this area is a Krispy Kreme stronghold.
I haven't been in the new Dunkin Donuts, but I'm sure it's nothing like the east coast ones I remember from way back in day: They always were housed in some dilapidated former gas station that was one strong wind away from collapsing. Inside it was dingy....grimy....poorly lit....with the same four old dudes in the corner drinking coffee and smoking like chimneys.
The new one in Hurst that I drove by the other day looked like a modern art masterpiece.
----
This week in torts we'll be continuing our discussion of negligence. If your acts are negligent and you hurt someone then you "take the victim as they are." That is, you're responsible for the damages even if the act wouldn't have hurt the "normal" person. Thus leads me to the so called "thin skull" rule. That means that if the victim had a freakishly soft skull and you accidently lightly tap it in the right spot and the dude's head caves in causing death.....*Fonzy* Heeeyyyyy! *Fonzy* Yourestillliableforhisdeath.com.
So a companion rule to that (and the payout to mentioning the former) is the "Shabby millionaire". Suppose you're driving down the street and you run a red light and hit a dude dressed in rags and smelling like ass (we'll just go ahead and call him a bum). But hey ho! We wasn't a bum at all! He was really a millionaire that liked to roll around in rags and worn out shoes (emo?). Your restitution isn't based on bum levels (a refridgerator box and a bottle of wild turkey). You get to pay out at the "dead .com millionaire" rate ($$$).
So the end result is that you don't get to get out of responsibility for negligence just because they didn't "look" sick or poor or emo or whatever.
That last part really had nothing in common with the other stuff. I just thought it was amusing. 10/3/2008
It was nice to see the fiscal conservatives gang up and defeat the stimulus package earlier in the week. I'm not sure where they've been hiding for the past 8 years, but they picked a hell of a time to make their presence known. Better late than never I suppose.
This thing is probably going to pass on Friday. And it's a shame too. I for one would like to see Wall Street be forced to lay in the unsustainable financial bed that they've created. For years they fought any kind of oversight, arguing instead for unfettered free markets.
Of course, when the market shits the bed suddenly government intervention is not a bad thing anymore.
To be clear, this bailout package is welfare. It matters not that the recipients are members of the fortune 500. It is welfare none the less.
Just remember Wall Street: If the government has the power to restrain losses, then they also gain the power to regulate gains as well.
Heh. Only in modern credit-card obsessed America do we try to borrow our way out of a debt crisis.
This debate can be summarized thusly: This is what would happen if a career politician and your mom got into a political debate.
Palin's goal was to hold her ground. She did, and it appeared to be a better-than-expected showing. It was a little folksy and *gosh shucks* hickish. But it was a better showing than previously.
Biden's goal was to look like an elder statesman. Obama needed him to articulately draw distinctions between them and the McCain campaign and to be the attack dog. And he did it, at times rather excessively I thought. Seemed like at times he went too far out of his way to criticize McCain. Palain butchered some names and concepts, but rather than drill her on it he let it go. I thought that was classy. Especially when she said we needed the help of the Talibani in Afghanistan.
Clearly Palin worked hard to prepare for this. And of course, like any good debate coach, she had her eject button(s). In this case, it was Energy and Tax cuts. You could tell in a few places where she was uncomfortable with a couple questions as she would work to get the topic back on ground she was comfortable with.
These kinds of techniques are very effective at keeping "on message" while avoiding weaknesses. It also drives moderators and debate opponents absolutely bat shit.
The political blogs earlier today were abuzz with predictions. The conservative bloggers (Michelle Malkin in particular) really sounded scared about how Palin would do. Going to the good ole "bias" card, it almost sounded like they were setting the stage to easily explain away a Palin embarassment. The liberal bloggers were expecting a glorious victory with a huge mushroom cloud hovering over where Palin once stood.
It would appear neither side got what they were expecting. From here, there certainly appeared to be no particular knock-out blow. In fact, it could be said that both candidates came out and did what they needed to do.
There was one point where Biden choked up while talking about his dead wife. I wonder how that will play with the pundits.
The debate for me came down to one moment. The moderator asked what exactly it was that the Vice President did. Palin gave a broad generic answer about general constitutional authority. Then she added that, like Dick Chaney, she believes in increased constitutional power for the VP. Biden discussed specific provisions of the constitution, mentioning Article 1 by name and talking about the role of the VP as an executive office rather than a legislative one.
To me that really solidified the idea that Biden knows what the job is about, and Palin is just way too green for this kind of thing.
Unless middle America saw something I didn't, I wouldn't look for the polls to shift too much (if any) in the coming weeks.
I would have liked to have heard more domestic policy questions and more stuff about the bailout as well as general plans about where we should go from here regulation wise. Maybe Tuesday's debate will talk more about that. 9/16/2008
Finally got my replacement phone in the mail. Wohoo!
For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, there was a....mishap...over Labor Day weekend. It involved my phone, Zakk's girlfriend, a hot tub, a 1/2 full bottle, and the act of Trespass to chattels. It was quite tragic.
----
So, does anyone want to actually *WIN* this presidential election? First Barak Obama (rightfully) criticizes John McCain as a D.C. insider. Then he goes and picks one of the only guys who has been in the Senate longer than McCain as his running mate thus completely neutering his best points.
Then John McCain, who had been successfully (and correctly) criticizing Obama's lack of experience, goes and picks a VP who's only experience is being the governor of the welfare state known as Alaska and former mayor of the thriving metropolis of East Whatever (population 9000). Thus that point is gone.
Previously I was rather ambivalent of both candidates. There were some things I liked about each and some I didn't like. Readers of this blog may not believe it, but it didn't really make much difference to me whether we got McCain or Obama.
I'm sorry to say that the choice of Palin pretty much clinches it for me. I'll be pulling the big blue lever come November. We don't need a mini-skirt wearing ignorant ass backwards Bush disciple backing up a 70 year old president.
Well, I guess calling her a Bush disiple implies that she actually knows what his doctrines are. Interviews over the past couple days show that isn't the case.
Don't cast your vote for president merely because you think the Vice President is hot people!
-----
Law school is still going well. Our first legal memo assignment is due today. Certainly not my best writing by any stretch. The logic is so convoluted at one point, I don't even understand how I arrived at the conclusion. It's quite a piece of mental gymnastics.
-----
The weddings are finally done for the year. I think.
Congrats to Robby and Cheri who got married this past weekend. There was some drama, but eh.
Sorry I had to leave early folks. Gone, at least temporarily, are lazy weekends with no studying. But it was good to see you guys none the less.
------
Got a motorcycle class with Beth coming up this weekend. Should be fun. I've been thinking about learning how to ride and getting my class M license for quite some time. It was actually her idea, but I think it was a good one. No time like the present.
There won't be very many other trips coming up, at least until after Thanksgiving.
I will be Albuquerque for the second weekend of balloon fiesta. Hope to see some of you then!
The train is pulling into the station. Time to go to school.
Take care everyone! I never really gave up on
Breakin' out of this two-star town
I got the green light
I got a little fight
I'm gonna turn this thing around
Can you read my mind?
Can you read my mind?
The good old days, the honest man;
The restless heart, the Promised Land
A subtle kiss that no one sees;
A broken wrist and a big trapeze
Oh well I don't mind, if you don't mind
'Cause I don't shine if you don't shine
Before you go, can you read my mind?
It’s funny how you just break down
Waitin' on some sign
I pull up to the front of your driveway
With magic soakin' my spine
Can you read my mind?
Can you read my mind?
9/9/2008When happily ever after fails
And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales
The lawyers dwell on small details
Since daddy had to fly
But I know a place where we can go
Thats still untouched by man
Well sit and watch the clouds roll by
And the tall grass wave in the wind
You can lay your head back on the ground
And let your hair fall all around me
Offer up your best defense
But this is the end
This is the end of the innocence
8/20/2008The Mormon church is unique in their organization. Where most other denominations let the parisoners choose where they want to attend, the LDS church organizes geographically (at the most basic street by street level, these are called wards). Generally you are encouraged to attend your assigned ward based on where you live.
There are some exceptions to this rule. One is with regards to young single adult (YSA) wards. These are wards that are specifically for...well.... young single adults. They are still organized somewhat geographically, but those rules are a little more lax. These wards have two unique rules of their own: 1) If you get married you generally leave and join a regular ward. And 2) Upon turning 30 you generally leave and join a regular ward (I guess you aren't considered "young" at this point). The second point, in my experience, is at the discretion of the bishop.
And this is where the recent turn of events kicks in.
I like student wards. The people are younger and they have a lot of good energy. The ward its self is geared towards them, so they have lots of great social events. And the church meetings are quieter and it's easier to hear (a boon to someone like me who has trouble hearing at times) because there are no kids (versus family wards where the babies cry and the older ones fidget).
At the UTEP student ward, I made it point to avoid giving out my information to have my records transferred. The second bishop there was a stickler for procedure, and I had seen others previously "encouraged" to leave the ward "when it was time." Not wanting to draw attention, I just decided to keep a low profile. The issue wasn't pressed, so there was no need to force action. Everyone wins.
So I've been doing the same at the student ward in Coppell that I've been going to. In fact, I haven't put my name on a single sheet of paper there. None. So this past Sunday, I was doing some studying when there was a knock at the door. I opened it, and standing there were two missionaries and a member of the "big kid's ward" who came to say hello. They had just received my records and were there to welcome me "into the ward." I didn't recognize them from the student ward though. And as it turns out, they weren't. My records had been forwarded somehow to the "family ward" (anyone see where this is going?)
I invited them inside and we talked a little bit, however my paranoia was not alleviated by that conversation. It turns out that the third guy in the group (the non-missionary) just turned 31. He himself was in the student ward, and they actually asked him to change over (presumeably due to age).
Me being....well stubborn ole me...this has just increased my resolve to keep a low profile. But if that conversation is any indication, it's really just a matter of waiting for the other shoe to drop.
The REAL question....the one that has been burning in my mind for the past couple days....is how in the world did my records get transferred??? The student ward at UTEP didn't have them. My old ward in Houston didn't have them either. The last place I was "on record" (or so I think anyway) was my original YSA ward in College Station. I called a few people in El Paso that might have had anything even remotely to do with giving up my new address, and they didn't know anything.
So it's a realy mystery. I mean, the only other thing I can come up with is either someone got a hold of my snail mail forward, or from a credit report. But that's diving into some deep conspiracy theory waters right there, and I've always been an Occam's Razor kind of guy.
Looks like some of these "law talkin guy" skills may come in handy sooner than later. Stay tuned for the next exciting installment of "Can Scott jedi mind trick the bishop?" |
|
|
|
|