My cell phone bill is less then the baseline bill for my old land line. On top of that long-distance is at no additional charge which is good because 95% of my personal calls are long-distance. So what you call an ego trip I call basic economics.
Just because we don't understand the mechanism, it doesn't mean things aren't happening.
and that my friend is at the heart of great science. I belive it was Helmholtz who said the same thing about the nervous system, he "knew" something like the nervous system existed, but lacked the tools to see it. Overall, he was a brilliant man.
Not really, any law school worth going to will require an undergraduate degree. For a more competitive program, a graduate degree will help quite a bit. I know, because I have both (plus concurrent software engineering experience) and I am staring my second semester of law school.
But I guess these things make the bar owners feel better, not to mention if a minor were caught in the bar it would help the owner if they can show that they made every reasonable effort to keep minors out.
exactly, for the owner of any establishment that serves alcohol this is manna from heaven. Get sued for serving alcohol to a minor and you not only get to join the company that made the reader a co-tortfeasor in order to spread the cost, you get to turn around and sue the company for anything you do lose for detrimental reliance on their product. However, as a lowly 1L I could be wrong. 2L's and 3L's feel free to critique.
In addition, once this is hooked to a database the next step is to feed in what people order. You now have a legal record of who drank what, how much, and when. I know, I know, people will switch drinks, etc. However, bar owners will have strong incentive to keep their records as accurate as possible. I know, I know, no one is going to drink where their drinking habits are recorded, ect. I disagree, the "industry" will spin it to make it sound "cute & fuzzy" while throwing in a points system to reward customers. Besides, most bar slugs don't care.
I believe I have solved for n in the n:???, n+1:profit! slashdot wealth paradigm. n: hook to database.
Take this all with a grain of salt as I am a 1L. 2L's and 3L's please feel free to critique.
A few things, that really isn't fair on India The government of India was the majority stakeholder. As such they knew or should have known the legal issues arising from a major industrial accident.
all those people who don't have much money are not going to come to the US and testify (also it would be easy from some key wittness to not get visa in time etc.). Video deposition would be suffcient for the majority of witnesses. The rest could be on per-diem and the Indian government would have to plead special damages in order to re-coup their costs. If a key witness (that is a party required for just ajudication) was unavailable due to visa issues, I have no doubt that the federal judge in the case would start leaning on whoever it took to get the matter resolved.
If you are going to do business in another country, why shouldn't you have held accountable by it's laws? If the contract with UC, the same one that gave India 51% ownership, specified that any legal action would be taken in the US then that was the contract that they signed. The clause that specified where legal action should commence is neither burdensome nor onerous.
Why should India lawyers before force into another legal system that they don't know? There are a couple of ways to answer this. First, if they are a common-law country, then the method of how you prove a case is the same (case law nad statue law). Second, India would contract with a US law firm to do all of the sheparding through the federal court system. In some Federal courts the entire process is scheduled to a degree that significant understanding of the underlying complexities is not required. Third, if the Indian government can not find a lawyer experienced with US Federal civil practice to act as pointman then maybe they should think twice before letting a US corporation set up shop there.
What would happen if the it was an India who commited a crime the US, should he be tried in India? Depends, is the citizen a private citizen or a corporate citizen? If the person is a private citizen then, much like a private US citizen abroad, they would be tried in the host country unless there was an agreement between host country and home country to extradite the individual. In the case of a corporate citizen then it would depend on the nature of the contract which the corporation is party to.
All that aside, my guess is that the Indian government does not want to try the case in Federal civil court because of the linient discovery requirments that might uncover information embarassing to themselves. With a public case like this, it is unlikely that a judge would order the records sealed.
The other "reason" I heard is that the Chinese had bought part of the F-117(?) that went down and were storing it in the embassy. In any event I found it interesting that they hit the intelligence section of the embassy.
France did not "help" us until we won the battle of Lake Champlain at which point the position of the British was untenable. The battle of Cow Pens simply put the nail in the coffin. The French did prevent the British from retreating at Yorktown by blockading the harbor which shortened the war, but by then the end was inevitable. France was looking out for its own geo-political interests. There is no version of Normandy in America where sit row upon row of white crosses to comemorate the sacrifice of so many young men for a people that at the time they did not know and now spit on their memory. At Treaty of Paris negotiations, it was more US/UK v France then UK v US/France. Anyway, enough of a rambling history lesson that no-one will read.
Except the web-site is simply propaganda that has no bearing on the actual policies. Policy is created by either PACs or by career bureaucrats. Decisions are made based on some sort of information, control the information and you control the policy. Bureaucrats control the information directly by editing out competing world-views. PACs control information indirectly by buying face-time to express their views, in absence of a competing view (because there is no PAC to express it) the expressed view becomes a world-view.
-start arm-chair foreign policy analysis.
In a small measure the failure of American policy in the Middle East can be found in the lack of understanding on the part of the islamic intelligentsia for the political reality in the US. Without providing a counter-view to the information provided by organizations such as AIPAC, they ensure that American policy is one-sided. This may not be entirely accidental in my opinion. It is possible that some countries would prefer a particular slant to American policy so that their citizens will vent their hostility on the US and not their home country.
-end arm-chair foreign policy analysis
Now some may argue that the President is responsible for educating himself on such things; however, seeing as how you could pick up a PhD or two on the subject and still not be "fully informed", it is reasonable to assume the President must rely on his advisors.
The issue with N.K. is that they want a "strong leader" who will be able to force through congress any treaties or programs that the U.S. and N.K. negotiate. They see Bush as this "strong leader". They are probably right, should Kerry get elected and the republicans control congress, the republicans may just block Kerry out of spite.
Ah my 7 weeks of law school training now come in handy. To have a negligence tort action you need to show duty, breach, causation (aka unreasonableness), and damages. In Texas at least, you owe no duty to a trespasser. Therefore no tort action is possible. 2L's and 3L's feel free to correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Certificates of Deposit denominated in Euros.
true, but ProCD is only binding in the 7th circuit.
Only in Soviet Russia....
and that my friend is at the heart of great science. I belive it was Helmholtz who said the same thing about the nervous system, he "knew" something like the nervous system existed, but lacked the tools to see it. Overall, he was a brilliant man.
VideoLAN, plays just about everything.
With "teir" and "teh" you may want to consider remedial spelling courses along with GRE preparation.
Not really, any law school worth going to will require an undergraduate degree. For a more competitive program, a graduate degree will help quite a bit. I know, because I have both (plus concurrent software engineering experience) and I am staring my second semester of law school.
It is all dark.
to a non-combat MMO about the time I subscribe to slashdot.
Personally i would like to see a stronger collaboration between the Scandinavian contries
You could call yourselves the Viking Union.
But I guess these things make the bar owners feel better, not to mention if a minor were caught in the bar it would help the owner if they can show that they made every reasonable effort to keep minors out.
exactly, for the owner of any establishment that serves alcohol this is manna from heaven. Get sued for serving alcohol to a minor and you not only get to join the company that made the reader a co-tortfeasor in order to spread the cost, you get to turn around and sue the company for anything you do lose for detrimental reliance on their product. However, as a lowly 1L I could be wrong. 2L's and 3L's feel free to critique.
In addition, once this is hooked to a database the next step is to feed in what people order. You now have a legal record of who drank what, how much, and when. I know, I know, people will switch drinks, etc. However, bar owners will have strong incentive to keep their records as accurate as possible. I know, I know, no one is going to drink where their drinking habits are recorded, ect. I disagree, the "industry" will spin it to make it sound "cute & fuzzy" while throwing in a points system to reward customers. Besides, most bar slugs don't care.
I believe I have solved for n in the n:???, n+1:profit! slashdot wealth paradigm. n: hook to database.
Some bored e-3 at NORAD decided to see if he could bull's-eye a seagull with a "smart-pellet" from LEO. Looks like he could.
Take this all with a grain of salt as I am a 1L. 2L's and 3L's please feel free to critique.
A few things, that really isn't fair on India
The government of India was the majority stakeholder. As such they knew or should have known the legal issues arising from a major industrial accident.
all those people who don't have much money are not going to come to the US and testify (also it would be easy from some key wittness to not get visa in time etc.).
Video deposition would be suffcient for the majority of witnesses. The rest could be on per-diem and the Indian government would have to plead special damages in order to re-coup their costs. If a key witness (that is a party required for just ajudication) was unavailable due to visa issues, I have no doubt that the federal judge in the case would start leaning on whoever it took to get the matter resolved.
If you are going to do business in another country, why shouldn't you have held accountable by it's laws?
If the contract with UC, the same one that gave India 51% ownership, specified that any legal action would be taken in the US then that was the contract that they signed. The clause that specified where legal action should commence is neither burdensome nor onerous.
Why should India lawyers before force into another legal system that they don't know?
There are a couple of ways to answer this. First, if they are a common-law country, then the method of how you prove a case is the same (case law nad statue law). Second, India would contract with a US law firm to do all of the sheparding through the federal court system. In some Federal courts the entire process is scheduled to a degree that significant understanding of the underlying complexities is not required. Third, if the Indian government can not find a lawyer experienced with US Federal civil practice to act as pointman then maybe they should think twice before letting a US corporation set up shop there.
What would happen if the it was an India who commited a crime the US, should he be tried in India?
Depends, is the citizen a private citizen or a corporate citizen? If the person is a private citizen then, much like a private US citizen abroad, they would be tried in the host country unless there was an agreement between host country and home country to extradite the individual. In the case of a corporate citizen then it would depend on the nature of the contract which the corporation is party to.
All that aside, my guess is that the Indian government does not want to try the case in Federal civil court because of the linient discovery requirments that might uncover information embarassing to themselves. With a public case like this, it is unlikely that a judge would order the records sealed.
The other "reason" I heard is that the Chinese had bought part of the F-117(?) that went down and were storing it in the embassy. In any event I found it interesting that they hit the intelligence section of the embassy.
France did not "help" us until we won the battle of Lake Champlain at which point the position of the British was untenable. The battle of Cow Pens simply put the nail in the coffin. The French did prevent the British from retreating at Yorktown by blockading the harbor which shortened the war, but by then the end was inevitable. France was looking out for its own geo-political interests. There is no version of Normandy in America where sit row upon row of white crosses to comemorate the sacrifice of so many young men for a people that at the time they did not know and now spit on their memory. At Treaty of Paris negotiations, it was more US/UK v France then UK v US/France. Anyway, enough of a rambling history lesson that no-one will read.
I doubt any Kerry voters would vote for Bush at this point regardless of any proclamations, true or otherwise.
Except the web-site is simply propaganda that has no bearing on the actual policies. Policy is created by either PACs or by career bureaucrats. Decisions are made based on some sort of information, control the information and you control the policy. Bureaucrats control the information directly by editing out competing world-views. PACs control information indirectly by buying face-time to express their views, in absence of a competing view (because there is no PAC to express it) the expressed view becomes a world-view.
-start arm-chair foreign policy analysis.
In a small measure the failure of American policy in the Middle East can be found in the lack of understanding on the part of the islamic intelligentsia for the political reality in the US. Without providing a counter-view to the information provided by organizations such as AIPAC, they ensure that American policy is one-sided.
This may not be entirely accidental in my opinion. It is possible that some countries would prefer a particular slant to American policy so that their citizens will vent their hostility on the US and not their home country.
-end arm-chair foreign policy analysis
Now some may argue that the President is responsible for educating himself on such things; however, seeing as how you could pick up a PhD or two on the subject and still not be "fully informed", it is reasonable to assume the President must rely on his advisors.
The issue with N.K. is that they want a "strong leader" who will be able to force through congress any treaties or programs that the U.S. and N.K. negotiate. They see Bush as this "strong leader". They are probably right, should Kerry get elected and the republicans control congress, the republicans may just block Kerry out of spite.
ah but do you have buttered skons for tea?
Ah my 7 weeks of law school training now come in handy. To have a negligence tort action you need to show duty, breach, causation (aka unreasonableness), and damages. In Texas at least, you owe no duty to a trespasser. Therefore no tort action is possible. 2L's and 3L's feel free to correct.
someone keeps putting an elder sign around my 'vote Cthulhu' yardsign.
Except that would give political parties even greater incentive to gerrymander the congressional districts for their benefit.
You mean like Dennis Miller?
One of the prime drivers for this war was neither a politician (an elected representitive) or a business man. Paul Wolfowitz.