Sue today, gone tomorrow. The plaintiffs sure as hell don't seem to have standing to sue. This is a "generalized grievance" that will get kicked out of court if ever I saw one. No injury, no redressability, nada.
One, how are they going to keep the astronaut warm/cool in it
The main advantage of counter-pressure suits would be ditching the gas pressure that makes movement difficult. Additional layers could be added for radiation shielding and temperature/moisture control. As long as the additional layers did not inhibit movement as much as the traditional suit, it would still be a net gain development in the technology.
Even if the suit doesn't depressurize, it can't be good for your cardiovascular system to have a gaping wound exposed to vacuum or micropressures
Astronauts run the same risk in today's suits. The difference is with traditional suits, a puncture leads to your blood boiling and a quick asphyxiation from lack of atmosphere. Boy-o.
I think Quebec's general unwillingness to trust the federal government probably helps a lot here
It also helps that Canada doesn't have the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment only bars unreasonable searches and seizures, and the reasonableness jurisprudence is obviously different than whatever you guys have concocted in Canada from general English common law principles.
Because obviously we don't have a right to, nor would we want to keep any of that information private
The inquiry is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, that is whether your expectation of privacy is objectively reasonable. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not searches and seizures that offend the most hypersensitive in the population.
But a web address often has a 1-to-1 corespondence with its contents. Knowing the address is one simple - and undetectable - step from knowing the contents. They are doing an unconstitutional search here
No, they aren't. Just as dialing a specific phone number may be very indicative of the content of the call, given the person on the other end, the URL and email addresses one is contacting are addressing info. Just because there is some incidental indication of content is not the same as actually searching content. The constitutional inquiry is on whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject of the search. You may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of an email, like a phone call, but you certainly do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of a public web page or the addressing information, ie. URLS.
That's such a laugh. People called and emailed their senators in droves because of "Real ID". Jesus, what pap. The bill was defeated because the majority of Americans oppose the stealth amnesty bill, period.
The 'easy' way would be to take a small moon from Saturn and send it to Mars, break it up along the way, so that none of the impactors have ejecta reaching orbital velocity
By the time we can move "small moons", it will be a moot point. Extracting CO2 from Venus can be done using spacecraft fitted with atmospheric-carbon sequestering technology already in development. This solution is a practical near-term possibility while moving moons is pure science fiction.
Honestly the best plan for using mars for living is to plant some crap outside (but trap the O2 it makes) and live in contained environments
Totally agree. Mars will never, absent some fantastic new technology, be a second Earth. The best outcome would be to thicken Mars' atmosphere to closer to 1 bar with MORE CO2, not less. The positive side effect may also be to warm the planet enough that humans could comfortably venture outside their closed environments with a light parka and an oxygen mask.
Best bet would be to "mine" CO2 from Venus' atmosphere and dump it on Mars, possibly having the beneficial effect of beginning the process of terraforming TWO planets.
EULA 's at sporting events, music concerts and even your state fair!
There is a EULA. You are a licensee. Your continued presence at the event is conditional on the event not throwing you out for whatever reason they want or at least put in the "contract", ie. the back of the ticket nobody reads.
The NCAA schools are publicly funded, but the NCAA is a private organization.
Regardless, the NCAA owns the copyright to the "performance" of the game, and that has been tested in court. You can't distribute your take on the events live without NCAA consent. In addition, when you attend a game, and particularly when you are there on press credentials, you are a licensee and under restrictions of a contract that can be revoked at any time.
It absolutely is frivolous, because it is not based in law or fact. He didn't register the trademark in the industry categories overlapping with Microsoft's use of the term. The term is used to identify a TV channel, which poses no risk of consumer confusion with Microsoft's operating system use of the term. It is baseless. It is enough to get the case dismissed on a 12(b)(6) and, if I were MS's counsel, move for Rule 11 sanctions.
Note that journalists are much more careful with their facts in this case
No they aren't, unfortunately. Most of the time it is painful to read political, and particularly foreign affairs related, articles. It is usually 10% fact, 20% misinterpretation, 70% editorializing.
Niether NASA nor the US goverment can give anyone land on the Moon - as the Moon, like Antartica, is protected by international treaty
A treaty which hardly anybody signed, and no space power signed, and never went into effect. In other words, it is not law and useless.
The United States can give anybody land on the Moon. The US could give me the Andromeda Galaxy. The important factor is whether those property rights can be enforced. Since the US is the only nation on Earth even close to having the technical and financial capacity to send humans to the Moon, who could effectively contest such property rights? Any holder would have de facto rights guaranteed by the United States government. And that's nearly good as gold.
The Fourteenth Amendment applies to States, not private individuals. What a fool. His counsel is a bigger fool for allowing his client to entertain such nonsense. He should be sanctioned under Rule 11 for bringing a frivolous claim not grounded in law.
Mr. Wozniak says Mr. Draper's problem is that his skills lie in technology rather in making business deals or starting a company. "He didn't come from a business orientation," says Mr. Wozniak.'"
BTW - would it kill you to bother to read the opinion I cited? I mean, if you're going to try to argue First Amendment jurisprudence, you really should know what the law is. Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.
if financial transactions are "speech" and thus protected in the U.S
Sigh. For the same reason it isn't legal to make "charitable contributions" to the Mafia. All speech, even protected speech, is subject to reasonable regulations based on important government interests. Banning contributions to organizations that are listed as criminal or terrorist organizations is an obvious important government interest. You also obfuscate the issue by lumping campaign contributions, an expressly political expression, with non-political contributions. It is protecting political speech that is the primary goal of the First Amendment. Obviously, making charitable contributions to HAMAS has nothing to do with citizen participation in the domestic political process.
exactly how is placing limits on *campaign financing* in any way a violation of free speech?
Because campaign contributions are a form of political expression. The First Amendment does not just protect spoken "speech", it protects expressive conduct. Campaign contributions are expressive political speech. See the US Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976). Contributions can be reasonably regulated, but any act of Congress that completely barred such contributions and expenditures would be flatly unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
Sue today, gone tomorrow. The plaintiffs sure as hell don't seem to have standing to sue. This is a "generalized grievance" that will get kicked out of court if ever I saw one. No injury, no redressability, nada.
One, how are they going to keep the astronaut warm/cool in it
The main advantage of counter-pressure suits would be ditching the gas pressure that makes movement difficult. Additional layers could be added for radiation shielding and temperature/moisture control. As long as the additional layers did not inhibit movement as much as the traditional suit, it would still be a net gain development in the technology.
Even if the suit doesn't depressurize, it can't be good for your cardiovascular system to have a gaping wound exposed to vacuum or micropressures
Astronauts run the same risk in today's suits. The difference is with traditional suits, a puncture leads to your blood boiling and a quick asphyxiation from lack of atmosphere. Boy-o.
I think Quebec's general unwillingness to trust the federal government probably helps a lot here
It also helps that Canada doesn't have the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment only bars unreasonable searches and seizures, and the reasonableness jurisprudence is obviously different than whatever you guys have concocted in Canada from general English common law principles.
Because obviously we don't have a right to, nor would we want to keep any of that information private
The inquiry is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, that is whether your expectation of privacy is objectively reasonable. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, not searches and seizures that offend the most hypersensitive in the population.
But a web address often has a 1-to-1 corespondence with its contents. Knowing the address is one simple - and undetectable - step from knowing the contents. They are doing an unconstitutional search here
No, they aren't. Just as dialing a specific phone number may be very indicative of the content of the call, given the person on the other end, the URL and email addresses one is contacting are addressing info. Just because there is some incidental indication of content is not the same as actually searching content. The constitutional inquiry is on whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject of the search. You may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of an email, like a phone call, but you certainly do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of a public web page or the addressing information, ie. URLS.
It wasn't taken from any Ayn Rand writings.
That's such a laugh. People called and emailed their senators in droves because of "Real ID". Jesus, what pap. The bill was defeated because the majority of Americans oppose the stealth amnesty bill, period.
The 'easy' way would be to take a small moon from Saturn and send it to Mars, break it up along the way, so that none of the impactors have ejecta reaching orbital velocity
By the time we can move "small moons", it will be a moot point. Extracting CO2 from Venus can be done using spacecraft fitted with atmospheric-carbon sequestering technology already in development. This solution is a practical near-term possibility while moving moons is pure science fiction.
Honestly the best plan for using mars for living is to plant some crap outside (but trap the O2 it makes) and live in contained environments
Totally agree. Mars will never, absent some fantastic new technology, be a second Earth. The best outcome would be to thicken Mars' atmosphere to closer to 1 bar with MORE CO2, not less. The positive side effect may also be to warm the planet enough that humans could comfortably venture outside their closed environments with a light parka and an oxygen mask.
Best bet would be to "mine" CO2 from Venus' atmosphere and dump it on Mars, possibly having the beneficial effect of beginning the process of terraforming TWO planets.
EULA 's at sporting events, music concerts and even your state fair!
There is a EULA. You are a licensee. Your continued presence at the event is conditional on the event not throwing you out for whatever reason they want or at least put in the "contract", ie. the back of the ticket nobody reads.
The NCAA schools are publicly funded, but the NCAA is a private organization.
Regardless, the NCAA owns the copyright to the "performance" of the game, and that has been tested in court. You can't distribute your take on the events live without NCAA consent. In addition, when you attend a game, and particularly when you are there on press credentials, you are a licensee and under restrictions of a contract that can be revoked at any time.
It absolutely is frivolous, because it is not based in law or fact. He didn't register the trademark in the industry categories overlapping with Microsoft's use of the term. The term is used to identify a TV channel, which poses no risk of consumer confusion with Microsoft's operating system use of the term. It is baseless. It is enough to get the case dismissed on a 12(b)(6) and, if I were MS's counsel, move for Rule 11 sanctions.
+5 Insightful
What kind of horse shit story is this?
Note that journalists are much more careful with their facts in this case
No they aren't, unfortunately. Most of the time it is painful to read political, and particularly foreign affairs related, articles. It is usually 10% fact, 20% misinterpretation, 70% editorializing.
Considering the message board is for applicants to U.S. lawschools, what the law is in other countries isn't very relevant, is it?
Niether NASA nor the US goverment can give anyone land on the Moon - as the Moon, like Antartica, is protected by international treaty
A treaty which hardly anybody signed, and no space power signed, and never went into effect. In other words, it is not law and useless.
The United States can give anybody land on the Moon. The US could give me the Andromeda Galaxy. The important factor is whether those property rights can be enforced. Since the US is the only nation on Earth even close to having the technical and financial capacity to send humans to the Moon, who could effectively contest such property rights? Any holder would have de facto rights guaranteed by the United States government. And that's nearly good as gold.
My god man, don't you know where you are? You'll be tarred, feathered, and stoned for that comment.
The Fourteenth Amendment applies to States, not private individuals. What a fool. His counsel is a bigger fool for allowing his client to entertain such nonsense. He should be sanctioned under Rule 11 for bringing a frivolous claim not grounded in law.
Mr. Wozniak says Mr. Draper's problem is that his skills lie in technology rather in making business deals or starting a company. "He didn't come from a business orientation," says Mr. Wozniak.'"
His problem is that he's socially pathological.
So you're content with talking out your ass. Later.
BTW - would it kill you to bother to read the opinion I cited? I mean, if you're going to try to argue First Amendment jurisprudence, you really should know what the law is. Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.
if financial transactions are "speech" and thus protected in the U.S
Sigh. For the same reason it isn't legal to make "charitable contributions" to the Mafia. All speech, even protected speech, is subject to reasonable regulations based on important government interests. Banning contributions to organizations that are listed as criminal or terrorist organizations is an obvious important government interest. You also obfuscate the issue by lumping campaign contributions, an expressly political expression, with non-political contributions. It is protecting political speech that is the primary goal of the First Amendment. Obviously, making charitable contributions to HAMAS has nothing to do with citizen participation in the domestic political process.
exactly how is placing limits on *campaign financing* in any way a violation of free speech?
Because campaign contributions are a form of political expression. The First Amendment does not just protect spoken "speech", it protects expressive conduct. Campaign contributions are expressive political speech. See the US Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976). Contributions can be reasonably regulated, but any act of Congress that completely barred such contributions and expenditures would be flatly unconstitutional.
Yeah, it'll never happen, but it's a nice though
It'll never happen because it's a blatant violation of the First Amendment.