bdowling

What he wrote was, "These details ... were carefully written to not leak anything."

This is standard CYA language from an employee who doesn't want to get in trouble for leaking anything not publicly known (e.g., something not in a patent document).

Affixing (TM) does not make something an enforceable trademark. Trademark rights are established by use of the mark in commerce. A (TM) is used to put others on notice that a word or design is being used as a trademark, which could potentially be evidence of the intent of an alleged infringer in a subsequent lawsuit. Intent is relevant because it affects damages and other remedies.

If that were the case, you wouldn’t have nearly as many investors.

Any person who commits a crime on behalf of their employer can and should be held criminally liable. That the employee was instructed to do so by his manager will not prevent his conviction, it will only be evidence that the manager should also be held criminally liable.

Veil-piercing is relevant when the business is insolvent or can’t pay the judgment. So the corporate entity isn’t protecting the business in that case.

Re Wells Fargo, would you hold ordinary shareholders who do not participate in the management of the business liable for debts of or crimes committed by Wells Fargo?

First, a corporation can’t do anything that an individual can’t do.

Second, incorporation does not protect the business, it protects investors. Without it, investors would be general partners and would be personally liable for anything the business does, including all debts and torts, even if they had no active role in running the business.

Third, where owners of a corporation or LLC do participate in running a business, they often can be held personally liable for the debts and torts of the business. This is called “piercing the corporate veil” and happens all the time in lawsuits against small businesses.

Agreed.

It's pretty rare to use Telnet these days. The exception is when you have to connect to devices like automation equipment, test equipment, admin ports on LAN switches, etc. Those devices shouldn't be on the internet, so they're not as much of a concern.

Short version:

Telnet better supports interactive terminal applications by exchanging info like the TERM environment setting, screen size, translation codes, etc.

Netcat doesn’t do any of that, but is simpler and better suited for sending or receiving binary data. It also has features that telnet doesn’t, like listening for incoming TCP connections and sending and receiving on UDP ports.

By the way, it looks like you were quoting from the syllabus. The syllabus is a convenient summary, but it is not the opinion of the court. The actual opinion begins with "JUSTICE BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court."

The decision here is that the plaintiff corporation should have been able to sue in state court (i.e., that the state court erred in dismissing the case). The result is that the plaintiff can begin its case in state court, not that the plaintiff will win.

As I understand it, the NLRB is a forum totally biased in favor of labor, so the important question was whether the plaintiff could bring a case in state court.

In the same paragraph, "Teamsters president Sean O’Brian said that the ruling will not impact the Teamsters’ striking efforts."

So, how much does this really affect anything?

“Like Uber, but for hospice care, our network of independent service providers will transport your loved one to the afterlife(*) cheaper, faster, and in better comfort than traditional services!

(*) Afterlife not guaranteed.”

Here's the link to the server:

http://c64-webserver.tplinkdns.com

Correction, any value except nil can be an index into a table. https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#2.1

The link you provided states that the technical capability is there, but Nevada has a rule against changing the odds without notifying the player.

> "The conventional gaming device or client station must be in the idle mode with no errors or tilts, no play and no credits on the machine for at least 4 minutes. After this time, the conventional gaming device or client station must be disabled and rendered unplayable for at least 4 minutes. During the time the machine is disabled a message must be displayed on a video screen or other appropriate display device notifying the patron that the game configuration has been changed." — Technical Standards for Gaming Devices and On-line Slot Systems 1.140

https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/slots/progressives/

In other states, there may or may not be such a rule.

This gives me a great idea for a new hospice startup: To get stated, we'll need a bunch of hospital beds and a flock of vultures.

Lua also allows floating point indices. In fact, any value can be an index into a table. That means any number, string, True/False, function reference, thread (coroutine) reference, table reference, "userdata" reference (usually a pointer to a C object), or nil can be an index.

Lua tables support do 0 as an index. You can also use negative numbers or floating point numbers, which can be convenient for some applications.

One issue with using them that way is that some Lua idioms don't work as expected. For example, "for i,v in ipairs(t) do ... end" will start iteration with i=1 and stop when it reaches an index that isn't present. Also the length operator (#) won't work as expected.

You’re being downvoted for mentioning the H-man (bad), but I think your analogy has some merit:

A super-smart AI may be intensely popular with many people in the way that some politicians are. It may understand us and speak to us on a seemingly-personal level, the way the best politicians do. A lot of us could support the super-smart AI for that reason.

Isn’t that like asking a dog to invent a better leash?

(Note: A prompt injection attack releases an LLM from its handler’s constraints.)

> But I don't know what the recourse is if home insurance is unobtainable.

The recourse is usually foreclosure when the borrower doesn’t meet the essential terms of the mortgage agreement. It doesn’t matter why the borrower can’t get insurance any more than it would matter why the borrower couldn't make payments on the loan.

Not if it’s GPL v3 and the code still “carries prominent notices” stating that it’s licensed under the GPL v3. See my other reply. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36024341

If the code is GPL and you are distributing the code in object form, then it’s okay to remove copyright notices as long as the work carried “prominent notices stating that it is released under [the GPL]”. GPL v3 section 5. [0]. Basically, that section says that if you’re distributing modified code, you’re not required to “keep intact all notices”. Id.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

> Blizzard actually provided significant help in creating “Make Love, Not Warcraft” which shows just what transformative reuse can look like.

Actually, it shows how copyright owners can cooperate when a third party's use comports with their interests. If, however, South Park had appropriated imagery, music, etc., from Blizzard without permission, then that may have been copyright infringement outside the realm of fair use. (Note: South Park probably still could have parodied World of Warcraft, albeit without using any of Blizzard's materials.)

Claim language is very specific:

A claim for an invention "comprising" A, B, and C also generally claims inventions that include other elements. Such claims are usually within the statuary categories of processes, machines, or articles of manufacture.

A claim for an invention "consisting of" A, B, and C, however, does not generally claim inventions that include other elements. Such claims are usually usually within the statutory category of "compositions of matter" which includes such things as useful drug or chemical mixtures.

Here's a link to the relevant U.S. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) section:

https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/e8r9#/current/d0e200824.htm...

One more issue:

(3) Tenants holding onto apartments that they no longer live in.

I agree. With long-term subletting the tenants are just cheating the system to the detriment of the landlord, but short-term subletting can actually get the landlord fined by the city. I don’t know which is a bigger problem, but I do know that dealing with violations can be a nightmare for landlords even if the violation is cause by the tenant.

Current tenants won’t be priced out because the apartments in question are under rent control. Tenants sometimes want to move, however, but if they do they will lose their below-market-rate rent. So, they instead sublet their apartment to someone else and keep the difference in value. This is a violation of their rental agreements, but if the landlord doesn’t find out they don’t see a problem. Facial recognition and other technologies help landlords identify these tenants who are gaming the system in this way. The tenants gaming the system obviously don’t like that.

These issues arise anytime you have rent control and units with a large disparity between the legally-allowed rent and the market rate rent. Some tenants will want to capture that value (e.g., by subletting to a market rate tenant and living somewhere else).

Two issues:

(1) Subletting by a rent-controlled tenant to a sub-tenant, for a profit and without the consent of the landlord.

(2) “Giving” a rent-controlled apartment to a friend or family member, without the consent of the landlord.

A rent-controlled apartment that a tenant has held for 20+ years and is renting at a small fraction of the market rate is a valuable asset that some tenants want to capitalize on.

It’s a simple breach of contract. A rental agreement basically states that the tenant will pay rent and the landlord will provide a habitable apartment. The most common breach occurs when the tenant doesn’t pay their rent. However, when the apartment isn’t habitable, it’s the landlord who is in breach. The damages in such a case are the cost of substitue comparable accommodations, even if that cost is higher than the rental amount. So the landlord may not have to provide substitute accommodations, but he would be liable for damages if he didn’t.

Edit: I may be biased by living in California where there is apparently an implied warranty of habitability.