That is simply incorrect. From Section 215:
(Each application under this section shall be made to)`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court;
Magistrates aren't judges, and their powers are limited compared to real judges; they don't even necessarily have to have a law degree. They generally do stuff like sign search warrants.
I'm not sure why the law references 28 USCA 43; that section simply states the makeup of courts of appeal, and no reference is made to magistrates.
Even with the Supreme Court we have now, one would expect most of the act to end up in the dumpster once it has to face any kind of scrutiny in a court of law.
Eh, sometimes judges will break ranks to vote with the other side.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Irrelevant. This act was aimed at those supporting terrorist organizations, not necessarily enemies of the US. The treason clause of article III is very, VERY specific. For a good reason, too.
We do? Last I looked we have 1 party with 2 faces, that only disagree on very superficial things.
No, this is completely and utterly wrong. If you can't see a difference between this administration's actions and those of the last one, then I'm not sure where you've been living for the past 12 years, but they must not get newspapers...
Until your stupid logic board breaks down because freaking idiots at apple decided that form was just sooo much important than function. I swear to god their quality control must consist of a chimpanzee named earl prodding the hardware with a twig.
The books are firmly in the space opera genre with a dash of Heinlein libertarianism tossed in for good measure.
No. I can tell, because I detest Heinlein's works, and I liked the Golden Age.
In fact, if you consider the supercomputers' control over what they'd allow the populace to do, it was very far from libertarianism. And not coincidentally, a place that far from libertarianism is actually a nice place to live.
It's not even dumb in a lot of places. Lots of people in rural or suburban areas leave their doors unlocked, and find the notion of locking them somewhat repulsive.
his is the kind of think that can help tip business desktops away from MS in large numbers by giving local IT managers confidence and evidence that kowtowing to Redmond isn't a prerequisite to success.
Maybe it IS a prerequisite to success. After all, what if IBM's move completely backfires?
It was the same damn game as Doom. As Penny Arcade so aptly pointed out, the people at Id aren't really that creative. They spend all their time on the engine, but they're not really head and shoulders over the competition, like they should be considering how much more time it takes them to code things than everyone else.
Now, I do not have all the facts of this case, but the common procedure would be to award damages for the tort of negligence and then assessing the claimant's degree of contributory negligence to establish an appropriate apportionment.
Yes, it's quite common to see rulings where negligence is determined to the percentage point, and damages set accordingly.
There is more to it, but you should get the point by now. If not, take an introductory law course. They are usually surprisingly interesting!
I agree, such a course would do the average slashdot reader a world of good. Unfortunately in the US it's not really an option, due to the nature of our law school system. There are "legal studies" programs at the undergraduate level, but I have no idea how close they are to real law courses.
She knew this because, as a previous poster (and I) pointed out, she'd bought McDonald's coffee many times on previous occasions. She was therefore quite familiar with the product, and the temperature at which the product was sold.
That's just ridiculous. Is she some sort of tactile savant, able to precisely measure the temperature of liquids? And, she wasn't trying to drink it, she was trying to open the cup.
To then place herself at risk by handling said product in such an obviously unsafe manner reflects poorly on her judgement, not on McDonalds coffee.
Oh god, what insane way did she try to open it? In a parked car while sitting down. Where's the fault in judgement? How should she have tried to open it?
As another poster has pointed out (but which I am not able to verify), McDonald's coffee was served at 180 degress -- 5 degrees *lower* than the recommended minimum serving temperature.
No, you wouldn't be able to verify it, as it is completely untrue. Coffee is typically served at 130-140 degrees fahrenheit. 180 is insanely high.
Treat it carefully, or accept the consequences of your own foolish behavior.
Once again, where is this supposed "foolish" behavior. She tried opening a cup, it spilled. Where is the failure in intelligence? How should she have opened it?
McD's executives testified during the trial that they knew the risk, but had decided the money they saved was worth paying out settlements and workmen's comp.
Before you give your opinion on something, you might want to do some research.
Items above a certain temperature are dangerous. We learn this as children, and conduct our lives accordingly.
I really don't understand this way of thinking. Do you just not understand the concept of degrees of risk?
I mean, by your logic, it doesn't matter how hot McD's makes the coffee, because coffee is supposed to be hot. 200, 300, a million degrees, they should never take responsibility. If you believe this then your mind works in a very strange way.
If on the other hand, you admit that at some point McD's takes responsibility, then the question is where. Personally I think the temperature it was at was sufficiently hot enough that they should be held accountable. You're right, people are expected to take reasonable care with hot items. But how on earth could she or anyone else know the insane temperature they sold her the coffee at? Coffee hot enough to cause that kind of damage is NOT what we expect in our daily life. If I knew coffee that hot was being sold to me I'd refuse it. If, on the other hand, I'd assumed it was a regular cup of coffee, at a reasonable temperature, I'd take it, knowing that if I spilled it I'd suffer some temporary pain, but nothing I couldn't live with. It's called risk analysis, and McD's misled her by introducing a variable which a reasonable person WOULDN'T expect.
Why is this a problem? Why does everyone make this instantaneous leap of logic, automatically assuming that solitude and lack of communication is a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
That is simply incorrect. From Section 215: (Each application under this section shall be made to)`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court;
Magistrates aren't judges, and their powers are limited compared to real judges; they don't even necessarily have to have a law degree. They generally do stuff like sign search warrants.
I'm not sure why the law references 28 USCA 43; that section simply states the makeup of courts of appeal, and no reference is made to magistrates.
Even with the Supreme Court we have now, one would expect most of the act to end up in the dumpster once it has to face any kind of scrutiny in a court of law.
Eh, sometimes judges will break ranks to vote with the other side.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Irrelevant. This act was aimed at those supporting terrorist organizations, not necessarily enemies of the US. The treason clause of article III is very, VERY specific. For a good reason, too.
The first time I read that, I thought it said, "Libertarians." But that's probably not so far off, either. :)
It might be, it's amazing how many "libertarians" these days are supporting the patriot act and similar things...
We do? Last I looked we have 1 party with 2 faces, that only disagree on very superficial things.
No, this is completely and utterly wrong. If you can't see a difference between this administration's actions and those of the last one, then I'm not sure where you've been living for the past 12 years, but they must not get newspapers...
Until your stupid logic board breaks down because freaking idiots at apple decided that form was just sooo much important than function. I swear to god their quality control must consist of a chimpanzee named earl prodding the hardware with a twig.
I guess amazon.com which went public in 1997 must have been frequented only be researches and nerds for the first 5 years of operation.
Pretty much.
The books are firmly in the space opera genre with a dash of Heinlein libertarianism tossed in for good measure.
No. I can tell, because I detest Heinlein's works, and I liked the Golden Age.
In fact, if you consider the supercomputers' control over what they'd allow the populace to do, it was very far from libertarianism. And not coincidentally, a place that far from libertarianism is actually a nice place to live.
Nah, I think he got the right tone. It needed to be said.
It's not even dumb in a lot of places. Lots of people in rural or suburban areas leave their doors unlocked, and find the notion of locking them somewhat repulsive.
Yep, you don't see Nissan 350Zs going 350 mph. Unless you like push one off a very high cliff.
his is the kind of think that can help tip business desktops away from MS in large numbers by giving local IT managers confidence and evidence that kowtowing to Redmond isn't a prerequisite to success.
Maybe it IS a prerequisite to success. After all, what if IBM's move completely backfires?
It was the same damn game as Doom. As Penny Arcade so aptly pointed out, the people at Id aren't really that creative. They spend all their time on the engine, but they're not really head and shoulders over the competition, like they should be considering how much more time it takes them to code things than everyone else.
If Time magazine had a server-of-the-year award the cover would be featuring a feather.
If Time magazine had a server-of-the-year award nobody would read it. Except you people.
Some people will complain about anything. :)
I nominate that the above statement replace "News for nerds, stuff that matters." as the Slashdot motto.
The submitter's CHILDHOOD? But these things just came out, like a few years ago. God I feel old.
Not true at all. A right-wing, law and order type judge is far less likely to throw out evidence because of the way it was obtained.
I mean, working for the mob, bashing pimps with baseball bats and escorting hookers around just never gets old.
I get enough of those activities at work, thank you very much.
Robot hands?
If they get a right-wing judge then it doesn't matter how they got the info, it gets in.
Welcome to slashdot.
Now, I do not have all the facts of this case, but the common procedure would be to award damages for the tort of negligence and then assessing the claimant's degree of contributory negligence to establish an appropriate apportionment.
Yes, it's quite common to see rulings where negligence is determined to the percentage point, and damages set accordingly.
There is more to it, but you should get the point by now. If not, take an introductory law course. They are usually surprisingly interesting!
I agree, such a course would do the average slashdot reader a world of good. Unfortunately in the US it's not really an option, due to the nature of our law school system. There are "legal studies" programs at the undergraduate level, but I have no idea how close they are to real law courses.
She knew this because, as a previous poster (and I) pointed out, she'd bought McDonald's coffee many times on previous occasions. She was therefore quite familiar with the product, and the temperature at which the product was sold.
That's just ridiculous. Is she some sort of tactile savant, able to precisely measure the temperature of liquids? And, she wasn't trying to drink it, she was trying to open the cup.
To then place herself at risk by handling said product in such an obviously unsafe manner reflects poorly on her judgement, not on McDonalds coffee.
Oh god, what insane way did she try to open it? In a parked car while sitting down. Where's the fault in judgement? How should she have tried to open it?
As another poster has pointed out (but which I am not able to verify), McDonald's coffee was served at 180 degress -- 5 degrees *lower* than the recommended minimum serving temperature.
No, you wouldn't be able to verify it, as it is completely untrue. Coffee is typically served at 130-140 degrees fahrenheit. 180 is insanely high.
Treat it carefully, or accept the consequences of your own foolish behavior.
Once again, where is this supposed "foolish" behavior. She tried opening a cup, it spilled. Where is the failure in intelligence? How should she have opened it?
McD's executives testified during the trial that they knew the risk, but had decided the money they saved was worth paying out settlements and workmen's comp.
Before you give your opinion on something, you might want to do some research.
Items above a certain temperature are dangerous. We learn this as children, and conduct our lives accordingly.
I really don't understand this way of thinking. Do you just not understand the concept of degrees of risk?
I mean, by your logic, it doesn't matter how hot McD's makes the coffee, because coffee is supposed to be hot. 200, 300, a million degrees, they should never take responsibility. If you believe this then your mind works in a very strange way.
If on the other hand, you admit that at some point McD's takes responsibility, then the question is where. Personally I think the temperature it was at was sufficiently hot enough that they should be held accountable. You're right, people are expected to take reasonable care with hot items. But how on earth could she or anyone else know the insane temperature they sold her the coffee at? Coffee hot enough to cause that kind of damage is NOT what we expect in our daily life. If I knew coffee that hot was being sold to me I'd refuse it. If, on the other hand, I'd assumed it was a regular cup of coffee, at a reasonable temperature, I'd take it, knowing that if I spilled it I'd suffer some temporary pain, but nothing I couldn't live with. It's called risk analysis, and McD's misled her by introducing a variable which a reasonable person WOULDN'T expect.
Why is this a problem? Why does everyone make this instantaneous leap of logic, automatically assuming that solitude and lack of communication is a bad thing?