damnum absque injuria

April 30, 2005

CNET – Spyware Free

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 3:22 pm

This policy is long overdue, but CNET has finally announced a zero-tolerance policy for “adware” (spyware). The old policy was to prohibit spyware bundling unless it was “disclosed” (buried in a EULA you had to pretend to read while installing it). The new policy: if it has bundled “adware,” it’s not available at DOWNLOAD.COM. Good.

Suzi gives CNET three cheers. I’ll give them 2 1/2, as they are not a dollar short, but they are more than a day late. Still, better late than never.

April 29, 2005

Reparations, Croatia and Soup

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 4:09 pm

Q: Which of the following stories does not belong with the others?

Latest News
‘Soup Nazi’ to Launch Takeout Chain

Nazi Arms Supplier’s Heir Pays Reparations

Croats Remember Nazi Death Camp Victims

A: Trick question. If you work for the Ass. Press, the answer is none.

Schwarzenegger Praises “Vigilantes”

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:11 am

I like to think we can finally put to rest the Real RepublicansTM concerns that the Governator is a RINO. If you can judge a man by his enemies, here’s what Hispanic race-baiter Larry “Nativo” Lopez had to say about Schwarzenegger’s praise of the Minutemen:

“I think we’re seeing the real Arnold Schwarzenegger. The mask has now fallen,” said Nativo V. Lopez, state national president of the Mexican American Political Assn. “Those of immigrant stock should have no illusions about what his real sentiments and feelings are toward them.”

Uh-oh. I’m of immigrant stock myself. Worse, most of that stock is European – the same continent the Governator hated enough to leave himself. I guess I’d better watch my back.

Meanwhile, Heckle and Jeckle proved that old saying about stopped clocks, securing a promise from our non-RINO Governor that the President has some ‘splainin’ to do:

Asked by the hosts of the “John and Ken Show” why Bush called the volunteers vigilantes, Schwarzenegger said: “I really cannot tell you exactly what his thinking is. I’m sure he’s trying to solve the problem as well as anyone can. And he maybe has more information than you and I have. Why he has a policy about the border the way he has, I don’t know. I’ve not had that conversation with him.

“But the next time I see him, I will have that conversation.”

UPDATE: True to form, Professor Bainbridge accuses the Governator of “pulling a Pete” by opposing illegal activity. Perhaps he forgot that Pete himself got handily re-elected that way. Banbridge also links approvingly to President Bush’s slander of the Minutemen as “vigilantes,” and calls everyone who supports secure borders a nativist (!), a racist and a nut. Yawn. But a courtesey heh for the unintentional irony in using a term like “nativist” to describe an individual who isn’t even a native.

UPDATE x2: The Puppyblender has a much more sensible take on legal vs. illegal immigration (hint: they’re not the same).

April 28, 2005

Splodeydope Update

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:22 pm

Sgt. Hasan Akbar (no relation) is sorry that he murdered Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone and Army Capt. Christopher Seifert and wounded 14 others in Kuwait. Mr. Akbar nonexplained the attack thusly:

I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options.

Asked if their own lives had ever been in jeopardy or if Akbar’s attack had left them with any other options of their own, Mssrs. Stone and Seifert declined to comment.

Meanwhile, in Germany, hungry crows have been blamed for a recent spate of exploding toads.

UPDATE: I’ll bet Akbar’s even sorrier now.

I Thought Life Imprisonment Was Worse

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 6:05 pm

The Associated Press reports that hopes to avoid death and rot in prison instead. So much for the theory that death is too good for them.

This Blog is Rated R

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:17 am

If you read every post in its entirety, you know why. If you only skim the summaries on Bloglines or scan the main index page, you probably don’t. Find out all this and more from Justene, who posts a huge round-up of the Bear Flag League, broken up as follows: A through B, C through D, E through J (I guess that the Bear Flag League is missing the letter K despite being based in Kalifornia), L through M, P, Q through R, belated O, plus S through T, more of T, and the rest of T through Z.

Speaking of the Bear Flag League, let’s give a warm welcome to recent members Captain Ed, SoCalPundit, Three Bad Fingers, Fullosseous Flap, the Jawa, Jheka, Carpe Bonum and the California Mafia. If I’ve missed anybody, let me know.

UPDATE: The list has grown a bit, which is why some of the names you see in this blog entry also appear in older comments.

UPDTE x2: Justene has another round-up for on new members.

April 27, 2005

I’d Hate to Meet the Worst Man

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:11 pm

We’ve all heard the Bridezilla stories, the in-law-from-hell stories and whutnot, but best men usually come out smelling like a rose. Not this time. If I were the groom, what this guy did would just burn me up.

April 26, 2005

A Small Victory

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 6:48 pm

Convicted gun-runner Gary Small emerged victorious in Small v. United States, 544 U.S. __ (2005), which held that convicted felons may possess firearms as long as their convictions were outside the U.S. The majority’s rationale is that while 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) may say “any person… convicted in any court … of any [felony]” is prohibited from owning a firearm, surely it means that only a person convicted in an American court is prohibited from possessing one. Glad to see that’s been cleared up.


Free TiVo

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 5:37 pm

As the proud owner of three DirecTiVo boxes, I’m not in the market for a standalone TiVo box, but if you are, now’s the time.

Troll of the Day: Richard “Cabeza” Bennett

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 5:20 pm

If you haven’t been following Dick Cabeza’s efforts to one-up Patterico and me on the law, you should be. Here’s the logic you’ll need to get up to speed:

  1. The U.S. Supreme Court typically grants certiorari (i.e., decides to hear a case brought to its attention) when at least four Justices vote in favor of ruling on the decision. This is the so-called “rule of four.”
  2. Therefore, when the Supreme Court grants cert, you can assume that at least four Justices voted to take the case, and when it does not, you can assume that at least six either voted not to or did not participate in the decision to grant or deny cert.
  3. Unless, of course, the case in question involved Terri Schiavo, in which case denial of cert means all nine Justices agreed unanimously not to hear the case.
  4. The Supreme Court denies cert in the overwhelming majority of the cases brought to its attention, usually for reasons having nothing to do with the Justices’ opinions on the merits of the underlying case.
  5. Therefore, denial of certiorari does not set any precedent, and is cited only to show that a case has been fully litigated, not that any or all members of the Supreme Court agree with the lower court ruling.
  6. Unless, of course, the case in question involves Terri Schiavo, in which case denial of cert means all nine Justices believe the lower court ruling was 100% correct, and are just too lazy to issue a quick per curiam affirming that case on the merits.

Does that make sense to you? If so, you’re ready to explore Cabeza-land. Go.

UPDATE: It’s beginning to look like Patterico may have finally managed to shut him down.


Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.