fatdog789

Windows Mobile (now Windows Phone) applications have a higher price point b/c people who buy those phones can and are willingly to pay. Blackberry applications have an even higher price point.

Of course, you'd have to be willing to target international users for WinMo, and business apps for BlackBerry, but at least you're not stuck with customers who probably aren't old enough to drink.

Actually, yes I do hesitate. WalMart makes its demands up front. You know exactly what you're getting into when you sign with Walmart. It doesn't change its behavior after you've signed the contract, or make capricious decisions. If something needs to change, Walmart lets the supplier know, and why it needs to change, and how it needs to change. Apple doesn't even give you an email.

Force trumps money, currency, and metal. In a true doomsday situation, the guy with the gun will always have more in the bank than the guy with the gold.

2) The divorce rate has been going down steadily, despite the lack of change in divorce laws -- the rise in divorce was a social phenomenon, not a legal effect. Less harsh laws might have some effect, but not the level of impact you're thinking.

So that would be a categorical no to the first, and a qualified yes to the second.

Also look up alien abduction, underpants gnomes, and other urban legends.

I don't claim that courts in the past favored mothers, but in the present, there is no gender bias under the law.

The proponent of exclusive custodial control must prove the other parent's unfitness for custody. This is easy, if say, the other parent is a convict or a drug dealer. It's not so easy for suburbanites or rich folk. While the bar is lower than criminal guilt, it's not much lower -- proof must be by "clear and convincing evidence", which is significantly higher than the usual civil burden of "more likely than not".

Indeed, in over 90% of the cases I worked on, the exclusive custody proponent lost. The myth about mothers always getting the children isn't just a myth, it's blatantly untrue. Where exclusive custody is awarded, the father is just as likely to get custody of the children (usually b/c the mother does not have a job and is unable or unwilling to find one).

Kid, I worked in Cleveland. If there's any city where mothers should be "stealing" the kids from their fathers, its going to be a city where more than a 1/3rd of the male population doesn't have a job.

1b) You see that part where it says "spousal support"? That's crucial -- b/c the REST of the prenup is evaluated at the time of execution, not the time of divorce.

2) Both spouses' quality of living is considered -- the post-divorce quality of living must be equalized -- his may go down, but then so does hers. Usually, even with spousal support, the woman is at a disadvantage. BTW, if you think partying every night is a lowered standard of living for Nas, you don't understand who he is or what he does for a living.

From the source YOU cited: "Divorce Myth 5: Following divorce, the woman's standard of living plummets by 73 percent while that of the man's improves by 42 percent.

Fact: This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman's loss was 27 percent while the man's gain was 10 percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades." http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articl...

5) My source was Newseek, based on the latest US Census and the latest edition of the study you cited. If you want to wade through the census data, feel free to do so. "In 2005, the marriage rate was 7.5 per 1,000 people, while the divorce rate was 3.6 per 1,000, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. But since the people who get married in any given year usually are not the same people who get divorced (OK, maybe a few), the statistic isn't very meaningful. Even if you look at divorces among married couples, the rate has declined from a peak of 22.8 divorces per 1,000 in 1979 to 16.7 divorces in 2005." http://www.newsweek.com/id/161233.

5b) And I reiterate, that harsh divorce laws discourage divorce for both genders. The gender imbalance is not inherent in the laws, it is an outgrowth of the fact that women have babies and usually stay home to take care of them, meaning that they lose/leave their jobs and thus earn lower pay for their relative age/experience. BTW, have you ever looked at European family law? Divorce is even easier than getting married, and it shows -- European divorce rates trump the US.

I worked in the Family Court for a year. I can say from experience (a) people do not think about divorce when they think about getting married, unless they are wealthy and/or educated (b) young people do not generally put much thought, if any, to marriage beyond what their hormones are telling them, (c) people have plenty of kids before/outside of marriage just fine as it is, and finally (d) stress from child-rearing is a significant factor in most divorces -- couples with more children are more likely to get divorced. Don't believe me? Have you ever heard of "Jon and Kate + 8"? For a few weeks, you couldn't read a newspaper without seeing talking heads talk about the divorce rate among parents of large broods (4+ children).

1) Contrary to popular belief, most prenups are not thrown out -- the only requirements for a valid prenup to survive legal challenge is that both the (future) husband and wife were separately represented by counsel, AND that both spouses disclosed ALL properties (real and personal) they possessed. The validity of a prenuptial agreement is measured at the time it was signed, unless extraordinary circumstances justify re-evaluating it at the time of divorce -- and in such cases, the re-evaluation takes into account the relative importance of holdings. For example -- a normal person selling a startup for millions is an extraordinary event. Warren Buffet selling a company for millions is not. EDIT: Note that I am simplifying the requirements; the others involve a lawyer, so the lawyer will let you know what they are if you ever do a prenup.

2) Spousal support -- does not include money for the children. It is solely to "equalize" income between the former spouses, and can be readjusted on petition at any time by either spouse.

3) Child support -- the custodial parent may not use child support for their own benefit (unless that benefit is incidental to the benefit to the child). If the custodial parent does use child support for their own benefit, the non-custodial parent is entitled to reimbursement for that amount, and possibly a reduction in child support.

Interlude: Nas. Nas is a millionaire. He had a kid, with a woman, and lived a lavish lifestyle. B/c of that, on divorce, his wife and kid get to continue living a lavish lifestyle via alimony (wife's standard of living during marriage) and child support (child's standard of living during marriage). Lesson to learn: If you're rich, live a normal lifestyle and you won't pay (relatively) much in support.

4) Poor people -- whether black or white -- do not trust the legal system. The reasons are mostly obvious. However, a good portion of it is that poor people base their understanding of the law on shows like Judge Judy and Jerry Springer, not realizing that these shows are staged and/or not real courts.

5) The divorce rate for first-time marriages is less than 30%. (20% is the figure I hear most often). The divorce rate for people who have been married before increases by about 10-20% for each subsequent marriage. If you take out the multiples, divorce is actually fairly uncommon. Note too, that the divorce rate amongst college-educated couples (both spouses) is less than half of the divorce rate amongst couples where neither spouse went to college (stats for first-time marriages).

5) Harsh divorce laws discourage divorce. Think about it -- the easier and less painful it is too divorce, the more likely people are to go through with it. Divorce rates jumped when no-fault divorce laws were passed.

Hiding the codes/keeping them secret, like most vendors do, is okay -- the USB spec does not require disclosure.

BUT changing the codes to prevent interoperability is prohibited by the USB spec b/c it defeats the whole point of the USB spec.

Also, most crimes of "danger" are state-level crimes, not federal level crimes. Federal crimes, by and large, are the boring crimes you don't see on Law&Order or CSI.

If the sunset-provision had applied in the past, right now, the copyright/patent periods would be rapidly approaching infinity.

Edit: It's bull b/c most nations laws conflict -- it's impossible to obey any one such law without violating the law of another nation. Plus, it would cost too much to US businesses, and do you really think they'd let such a law pass or remain on the books if it actually existed?

However, executives can be held criminally liable for corporate misconduct b/c they're the ones who ordered/ratified/approved the conduct.

Note too, that criminal liability is not the same thing as tort liability -- corporations can be held liable for their torts, b/c intent is rarely a element in such actions.

For starters, "dangerous materials" is very strictly defined -- it's stuff like toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and other things that are so inherently dangerous that only a criminal would simply abandon them without taking safeguards. These aren't your run-of-the-mill household are commercial goods -- these are, at a minimum, industrial-strength shit.

On the other hand, it can be seen as a check on the balance of the executive police powers (specifically, the enforcement powers), which are not otherwise subject to political control.

The key issue is whether the company in question had significant market power and used that power for non-competitive purposes. Price-fixing is a classic example, but it's only one of several.

Also, state police will not report you to the federal police (except for immigration violations, and drugs in most states). State police fucking hate federal police agencies b/c the federal agencies utterly disrespect local law enforcement.

Finally, federal law only applies to interstate activities (usually, connected in some way to commerce). Without that crucial nexus, the federal government can prosecute you all it wants, but every court in the nation (except maybe in Texas and the Deep South) will throw out the case, with prejudice, and possibly even sanction the prosecutor for malicious prosecution.

As to the Cisco cite -- how is that relevant to MS? Moreover, copying software code is not a criminal offense -- it's a civil tort. Finally, equitable estoppel is not a matter of negotiation, it's a matter of one party's unilateral acts.

They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, correct, because MS is a corporation -- not a person. MS did this out of business sense -- increased interoperability with Linux just makes Windows/Microsoft all the more valuable.

In contrast, MS never released the FAT family of patents under an open license, as it has with Mono. Bringing up the spectre of TomTom (in the article) is FUD -- it's irrelevant and displays a ridiculous lack of understanding of the law. (And since the FSF is a legal organization, that means their legal opinions can't be trusted to be accurate.)

Lawyers who do primarily ideologically-driven work have difficulty understanding transactional law. And transactional law is pretty damn clear on this point -- by actively encouraging the use of Mono, MS is estopped from ever suing for patent violations for the use of Mono (estopped means that b/c they have induced others to reasonably rely on statements that they will not sue for using Mono, they cannot later go back on their word b/c this would be unjust -- the court will not allow them to "trap" others). It's been settled law for decades.