The Al Gore thing is the exact opposite of this topic.
He never said he invented the Internet. "Conservative" pundits looking to make fun of him made that up. What he said is he was on the committee that approved DARPA funding that led to research on interconnected networks and eventually the Internet.
So HERE we have a guy who DID NOT invent email saying he did.
In the Gore case we have a guy who DIDN'T invent something NOT saying he invented it, but the Republican Party talking points, ever a bastion of twisting anything just so we can get back to 1972 says he says he did.
In 1984 Judge Greene presided over the breakup of The Bell System into a variety of companies including long-distance telephone services provider AT&T, research arm Bell Laboratories ("Bell Labs"), and the regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs, colloquially "Baby Bells").
Like pieces of Terminator 2 rushing to re-form as the monster they started out as, these companies have been buying and selling competitors, rivals, foes, and friends.
Even today CenturyLink, a company that includes the former US West territory and several others, announced its upcoming purchase of Level3 Communications. Level3 competes with CenturyLink in offering fiber-optic carrier services and telephone services. It got big enough by buying among others Time Warner Telecom (not to be confused with Time Warner that AT&T wants or Time Warner Cable that nobody wants) and Xspedius -- two market competitors.
In time that Terminator 2 will be back and we'll have one big national telco and one big national cable company, and the ultimate duopoly will be complete...
...unless regulators or citizen lobbying stops it.
It's not a fucking TV show. This discussion is about the purported hero (not the TV show) :)
I hope that explains it to you. You like to swear but can't understand simple English so may I suggest you go work for a Verizon call center in a third world country? Practice saying "I am trying to help you now." Feels good, doesn't it?
I completely agree -- I thought he might have meant a law about fucking but didn't want to presume. There are enough of those already in the southern states... and... TD covers what happens if you don't get informed consent... and... ;-)
This is a bit off-topic but it brings up two other issues preventing "driverless cars" from being part of our current society:
1. Insurance policies are issued to _drivers_ based on the driver's record, age, location, and other actuarial factors. If the driver is not a factor, then I don't see an insurance company issuing a policy "to a car."
2. Traffic citations are issued to _drivers_ based on their actions while in operation of that motor vehicle. I don't see law enforcement willing to attempt to stop and ticket a driverless car.
Based on these simple things I'm not expecting to see driverless cars in operation on public roadways until both paradigms are resolved. Given that the insurance lobby and the law-enforcement lobby are amongst the largest in this country I don't expect that anytime in this decade OR the next.
SO this discussion about using one's Tesla for ridesharing purposes... should be constrained to "while one is in the driver's seat of one's Tesla."
Disclosure: I don't own a Tesla car. Disclosure2: I sure wish I did :D :D :D
Reading other people's minds is easy... when they have one.
I'm sorry that I didn't magically intuit that of the many references to laws in the original article or the TD article, YOUR comment was about THAT one.
Bless your heart for pointing that out! You're so cute. Next time you should consider maybe pointing out which law you mean instead of just saying "the fucking law", which could be interpreted to be a comment on "the law" in general.
Thank you for taking time away from your busy highschool day to chat!
Begged question - mfg liability on a per-use basis?
I like how you're approaching it but you've begged the question of *WHETHER* the manufacturer of a motor vehicle has any liability in its eventual use. The many lawsuits about brakes failing, accelerator pedals depressing, airbags with shrapnel, etc. are all based on a systemic failure, not a PER-USE failure.
I strongly suspect that the begged question, if asked, would be answered that NO, the manufacturer's liability does not change nor shift based on the PER-USE function of the vehicle. Rather, the liability is based on the overall function-as-expected/described/required-bylaw of the vehicle.
For that reason I think Tesla has no different liability whether the vehicle is used to carry your kids to the ballgame, your spouse to her office, or you to the store to buy groceries... or to take your drunk friend home... or to take someone else's drunk friend home for pay.
A motor vehicle sold in the United States is directly subject to the first-sale doctrine. That also means that the purchaser of said vehicle can safely ignore the post-sale conditions.
If Tesla were to limit or downgrade its software based on post-sale condition violations I happily predict their loss in court. It's not just a *stupid* strategy, a *closed* strategy, but also one that's in violation of established law.
Ehud P.S. I'm not a lawyer. I offer opinions on the law.
The Defendant can always file a counterclaim. If they do so before the Plaintiff dismisses the case, the Plaintiff is unable to unilaterally dismiss the case. The P must either get a stipulation from the D agreeing to it, or file a motion and get the Court to do so despite D objecting.
So ... if Donald Trump is stupid enough to sue the NYT, the NYT should --instead of waiting it out-- file some counterclaims. Those will survive a Trump attempt at dismissal, and he WILL be subject to Rule 26 disclosure.
Unfortunately that discovery would not be published, and would likely be subject to mostly being under seal. However, it sure would be fun knowing he's going to fight hard not to be grilled... and for a change... it will cost HIM.