Which is a tactic that is abused even more than the interstate commerce clause. They take our money as federal tax and then ransom it back to us to make us do things we don't want to do.
But they do it in a Constitutional manner. And actually it's a form of respecting state sovereignty in that Congress has to barter for it rather than just mandating it.
Because a lot of other countries probably won't accept them. Passports follow a standard, even if you've never heard of the country someone's from, you'd be able to identify what they show you as a passport.
If we all stop trusting each other, and keep it in the back of our minds that everyone we talk to might be trying to decieve and manipulate us for some third parties benefit, then we'll be ok.
I find it funny that the FAA doesn't allow matches to be in luggage checked into the plane. I can understand a lighter might leak and therefore expose something very flammable in the undercarriage. But matches? How could they accidentally light themselves?
It was through pressure brought by the Grue lobby.
Didn't Hollywood, typically thought of as a left-wing stronghold, get dinged for poor environmental policy?
It's entirely possible. I was referring to the anti-environmental right, not the right in general. There are leftists with horribly anti-environmental views, while there are rightists who are very pro-environmental. On slashdot, however, the anti-environmentalists tend to align on the right across a slew of issues.
Douglas Adams had a chapter on the efforts to save the baiji in
Last Chance to See
, which is really an amazing book for those of you who haven't read it. The sadness of this situation will no doubt be marred by countless slashdot posts by the rabid anti-environmental right who tend to post on these sorts of stories.
Umm, it's only 500k. In terms of a government budget that won't even show up on the radar. If they were to create a tax to gather this money, each person in the state would pay about 4 cents.
This constitutes an straightforward application of federal law. Section 1983 of the US Code provides for attorneys' fees in these sorts of cases.
In fact, costs and attorney's fees are often awarded in US courts, both federal and state.
In my state there's a statute that allows the awarding of attorney's fees if the court finds the claims were frivolous. The opposing side doesn't even have to ask for them, the court can order it on their own. I can't speak for other states, but I would be very surprised if this kind of statute wasn't in quite a few jurisdictions.
It wasn't a lawsuit against the state, it was a lawsuit against the governor. Courts have been using that sort of legal fiction for a long time in order to get around sovereign immunity.
y theory is that 'the other guy' did it. Que bono? Who benefits? Neither the wife nor Reiser does
Are you serious? He's paying his wife $8,000 a month in alimony and fighting her for custody. And what do you mean, "perfect setup"? What does this guy gain from her death? "doesn't have to worry about anything"? What's he worrying about now?
who spent time talking about how THEY would have NEVER done X, Y, and Z and their families would have been home by dinner time with fresh bear meat. I'm sorry, but taking nature survival classes, knowing how to hunt, or experience on a farm will NOT save you in the situation that James Kim was in.
I think a lot of slashdotters have issues regarding masculinity and they try to overcompensate. Most of them are in ultrasedentary careers, so they try to cop a macho attitude online that isn't really that convincing.
Seriously? Because the appeals courts I write briefs for seem to disagree.
I am curious as to which appeals court this is, as citing non-binding authorities, whether from other courts or treatises is extremely common. In fact, assuming it's a court that releases opinions, I guarantee you I can find several cases published by your court that will cite non-binding decisions as authority.
In the situation above, if you want to extend the 7th circuit decision to another circuit, of course you're going to cite it, and you're going to cite it prominently, including the court's rationale and the authorities THEY relied on. You honestly don't think the court wouldn't find it weird if you make the same arguments the prevailing party did in that case, without citing the case?
Sorry to be suspicious, but whenever I see people asking for charity saying 'don't give us equipment or services, give us money', I get suspicious regarding what the money is really going to be used for. Maybe it's just me.
I know, I mean "the Peace Corps"? They sound like some shady fly-by-night scam...has anyone even heard of them?
You are ignoring the context these works were created in. In the example of music, people tend to mention that Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. had no copyright protection. Why would they need protection if a vast majority of the population had no means to copy their work?
More importantly, weren't they usually actually commissioned to come up with their works? They made their money at the start.
Not necessarily. Not granting cert is not a statement of approval. The US Supreme Court is highly selective in the cases that it accepts. If you tried to cite that case, cert. denied, as authority in any other circuit you'd rightly be thought an idiot.
Actually that would probably be your most frequently used cite. In fact, if you submit a memorandum of law to a court and don't cite anything but binding decisions, they'd think there was something wrong with you.
Most slashdotters really don't understand the whole "precedent" thing. The vast, vast majority of cases don't set any "precedent"--most of them don't even have written opinions. The only way precedent is set is if there's a borderline legal issue that can be interpreted in different ways. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
Ah, you're talking in a PR sense. I meant in a legal sense, the only sense that matters to corporate overlords.
You don't think PR matters IMMENSELY to corporate overlords? HP is taking a very public hit on this, and the settlement agreement is quite public as we can all see.
But I dunno, I'm a lawyer so maybe I have a skewed view of it; I don't see having a judgment against you that big a deal. Civil wrongs aren't crimes, and every large company is going to have plenty of judgments against it on the record.
What are you talking about? They very publicly apologized through multiple press releases, they fired several of their executives, and agreed to an injunction (which is definitely losing from a legal standpoint). There's no dispute on anyone's part, even HP's, that they definitely did something very wrong.
Martha Stewart committed what most would consider a minor fraud. She was a very rich woman at the head of a very large corporation. She still went to jail.
A lot of the Enron people were convicted too. These were invariably very wealthy, VERY well-connected people.
Heinlein was a complete jackass. The funny thing is, for a guy who likes to tell everyone about how to live he failed at basically everything he did before he became a sci-fi writer. Washed out of the Navy because he didn't have the physical constitution required, failed in business, and failed in politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is a tactic that is abused even more than the interstate commerce clause. They take our money as federal tax and then ransom it back to us to make us do things we don't want to do.
But they do it in a Constitutional manner. And actually it's a form of respecting state sovereignty in that Congress has to barter for it rather than just mandating it.
Because a lot of other countries probably won't accept them. Passports follow a standard, even if you've never heard of the country someone's from, you'd be able to identify what they show you as a passport.
Noooo, hedonismbot is the best minor character. Though maybe the last episode qualifies him as more than a minor one.
3. Slashdot editors do a quick read to see if it's not blatantly inaccurate or uninteresting.
Heehee. Oh wait, you're being serious?
If we all stop trusting each other, and keep it in the back of our minds that everyone we talk to might be trying to decieve and manipulate us for some third parties benefit, then we'll be ok.
Hey, I'm from New York, I already do that.
I find it funny that the FAA doesn't allow matches to be in luggage checked into the plane. I can understand a lighter might leak and therefore expose something very flammable in the undercarriage. But matches? How could they accidentally light themselves?
It was through pressure brought by the Grue lobby.
Didn't Hollywood, typically thought of as a left-wing stronghold, get dinged for poor environmental policy?
It's entirely possible. I was referring to the anti-environmental right, not the right in general. There are leftists with horribly anti-environmental views, while there are rightists who are very pro-environmental. On slashdot, however, the anti-environmentalists tend to align on the right across a slew of issues.
- Last Chance to See
, which is really an amazing book for those of you who haven't read it. The sadness of this situation will no doubt be marred by countless slashdot posts by the rabid anti-environmental right who tend to post on these sorts of stories.Umm, it's only 500k. In terms of a government budget that won't even show up on the radar. If they were to create a tax to gather this money, each person in the state would pay about 4 cents.
IANAL; does this constitute a precident?
This constitutes an straightforward application of federal law. Section 1983 of the US Code provides for attorneys' fees in these sorts of cases.
In fact, costs and attorney's fees are often awarded in US courts, both federal and state.
In my state there's a statute that allows the awarding of attorney's fees if the court finds the claims were frivolous. The opposing side doesn't even have to ask for them, the court can order it on their own. I can't speak for other states, but I would be very surprised if this kind of statute wasn't in quite a few jurisdictions.
It wasn't a lawsuit against the state, it was a lawsuit against the governor. Courts have been using that sort of legal fiction for a long time in order to get around sovereign immunity.
You're forgetting the vegemite.
y theory is that 'the other guy' did it. Que bono? Who benefits? Neither the wife nor Reiser does
Are you serious? He's paying his wife $8,000 a month in alimony and fighting her for custody. And what do you mean, "perfect setup"? What does this guy gain from her death? "doesn't have to worry about anything"? What's he worrying about now?
who spent time talking about how THEY would have NEVER done X, Y, and Z and their families would have been home by dinner time with fresh bear meat. I'm sorry, but taking nature survival classes, knowing how to hunt, or experience on a farm will NOT save you in the situation that James Kim was in.
I think a lot of slashdotters have issues regarding masculinity and they try to overcompensate. Most of them are in ultrasedentary careers, so they try to cop a macho attitude online that isn't really that convincing.
Alright, I see we were talking past each other, I didn't realize you were emphasizing the cert denied part.
Seriously? Because the appeals courts I write briefs for seem to disagree.
I am curious as to which appeals court this is, as citing non-binding authorities, whether from other courts or treatises is extremely common. In fact, assuming it's a court that releases opinions, I guarantee you I can find several cases published by your court that will cite non-binding decisions as authority.
In the situation above, if you want to extend the 7th circuit decision to another circuit, of course you're going to cite it, and you're going to cite it prominently, including the court's rationale and the authorities THEY relied on. You honestly don't think the court wouldn't find it weird if you make the same arguments the prevailing party did in that case, without citing the case?
The VGAs are definitely better than the CGAs, that awards show is only in 4 colors, all of them ugly.
Sorry to be suspicious, but whenever I see people asking for charity saying 'don't give us equipment or services, give us money', I get suspicious regarding what the money is really going to be used for. Maybe it's just me.
I know, I mean "the Peace Corps"? They sound like some shady fly-by-night scam...has anyone even heard of them?
You are ignoring the context these works were created in. In the example of music, people tend to mention that Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. had no copyright protection. Why would they need protection if a vast majority of the population had no means to copy their work?
More importantly, weren't they usually actually commissioned to come up with their works? They made their money at the start.
Not necessarily. Not granting cert is not a statement of approval. The US Supreme Court is highly selective in the cases that it accepts. If you tried to cite that case, cert. denied, as authority in any other circuit you'd rightly be thought an idiot.
Actually that would probably be your most frequently used cite. In fact, if you submit a memorandum of law to a court and don't cite anything but binding decisions, they'd think there was something wrong with you.
Most slashdotters really don't understand the whole "precedent" thing. The vast, vast majority of cases don't set any "precedent"--most of them don't even have written opinions. The only way precedent is set is if there's a borderline legal issue that can be interpreted in different ways. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
Ah, you're talking in a PR sense. I meant in a legal sense, the only sense that matters to corporate overlords.
You don't think PR matters IMMENSELY to corporate overlords? HP is taking a very public hit on this, and the settlement agreement is quite public as we can all see.
But I dunno, I'm a lawyer so maybe I have a skewed view of it; I don't see having a judgment against you that big a deal. Civil wrongs aren't crimes, and every large company is going to have plenty of judgments against it on the record.
In this case? HP did nothing wrong, just ask 'em.
What are you talking about? They very publicly apologized through multiple press releases, they fired several of their executives, and agreed to an injunction (which is definitely losing from a legal standpoint). There's no dispute on anyone's part, even HP's, that they definitely did something very wrong.
Martha Stewart committed what most would consider a minor fraud. She was a very rich woman at the head of a very large corporation. She still went to jail.
A lot of the Enron people were convicted too. These were invariably very wealthy, VERY well-connected people.
Heinlein was a complete jackass. The funny thing is, for a guy who likes to tell everyone about how to live he failed at basically everything he did before he became a sci-fi writer. Washed out of the Navy because he didn't have the physical constitution required, failed in business, and failed in politics.