You're presuming something that simply isn't true. Go ahead, quote me the McDonald's coffee case. Do it after reading the facts and final outcome, though.
And you could weigh the moral impact of every action your boss asks of you (should I take out the garbage? Should I tell this struggling company their product sucks?).
I suspect you'd be pretty annoyed at the "elitist" attitude of lawyers if they decided that they really knew what was best for the world, and decided not to take your discrimination case because, let's face it, whiners are bad for productivity.
and it's businessmen who buy the laws. Don't insult the messenger in order to obscure the point. Just as it's whiny and greedy people - not lawyers - who are responsible for frivolous lawsuits, it's businesses that are focused on profits by all means necessary that are responsible for this result.
Well, my belief system says that you're a douchebag. What, I should have kept that to myself? Huh. I wonder if that advice might apply elsewhere. Funny, eh?
Larry's been hanging out with us for too long. He seriously thinks that he can get legislators to sign onto a CC labeling (licensing?) scheme? And if he does, the big stick if they violate it is . . . wait for it . . . voter outrage!
Heh. Yeah. That's been working just great for us, don't you think?
They shouldn't have made their openers to operate on this frequency, in the first place. It's no secret which frequencies are allocated to the US gov't. It's laziness on the part of the company.
I spent a good part of my childhood just a few miles away from the lucky side of the Iron Curtain. One of the things that our teachers told us was so bad about East Germany was the fact that they "kept files on their citizens! Normal people, like you and me!"
Seriously, does ANYONE think this will actually stop him from having any of those things? All you do is send someone out to buy those things privately (which any of thousands of dealers will be happy to sell to), and he brings them back. What, is North Korean Customs going to stop them at the border?
How about political conversation and information? YouTube is, without a doubt, one of the biggest boons to increasing the participatory part of the national conversation. I'm thrilled to see politicians, people, and orgs all over YouTube.
Actually, very little value is returned to the US Treasury from the license holders for AM and FM stations (commercial or not). The vast majority of licensees paid nothing for their licenses, and the yearly fees (called "reg fees") are directed back to fund the FCC's operating budget (i.e., there's no net positive flow of cash to the public). There have been some auctions of licenses that would create smaller stations (mostly in the middle of nowhere) in recent years, but the net take on those auctions has been neglible.
Station owners would argue that they pay "rent" to the public in terms of public interest programming requirements, but then I'd point out that that's all that crap you hear on Sunday morning at 7am, and you'd realize what a joke it was. Wish I could have got in while the getting was good . . .
No such thing as "broadcast tax". I think it's just a sloppy summary, as I didn't see any claims about "broadcast taxes" in my perusal of the WOXY site. If they were an actual broadcast operation, I suppose you could call the annual regulatory fees that the FCC imposes on most licensed spectrum users "broadcast taxes", but the FCC doesn't have any jurisdiction over internet radio.
. ..except mine.
That seems to be what folks really think.
Everyone hates lawyers until they need them. Lawyers suck, can you help me with this divorce? Lawyers suck, hey, he stole that from me! Lawyers suck, what does this mean?
Actually, choosing the USD was pretty much the best choice. It's a stable currency, it's already widely quoted as a standard in transactions, and the system used to govern the currency (the US Federal Reserve) is relatively transparent.
The nearest thing to that would be the GBP, or even (ahem, haha, excuse me) the Euro. I think the Euro needs to sort things out in it's own back yard first, before it can seriously compete with the USD or the Yen as an international currency (not to be confused with EU mandates that it be used- I'm talking about actual market acceptance).
The USD has also been adopted by a number of other countries (either directly, as in the case of Panama, or indirectly through fixed exchange rates, such as the Cayman Islands). I am not suggesting that the USD is an ideal base currency, but I certainly think it's the best choice in existence right now.
Thanks for the clarification. That said, I can't imagine it's any harder for an officer to conjure up "reasonable suspicion" in France than it is in the US.
I had the good fortune to attend a taping earlier today of a roundtable discussion on this topic that included Mark Rotenberg (EPIC), Bob Pitofsky (FTC chair), and Lance Cottrel (Pres. of Anonymizer.com, Inc.). This very issue came up, and it was pointed out that the "superior" European protections only applied to information collection by *private companies*, not the government. US citizens have a much higher level of protection from their own government (e.g., nothing more than the sig of a managing police officer needed for a wiretap in France). That said, it may not be much, but it's worth pointing out in the face of those thinking the European approach is the best thing going.
>I mean, how many appeals avenues are left? The (presumed) appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. There will be a three judge panel that hears this appeal (in contrast to the single judge- Jackson- sitting in District court). Theoretically, if one side or the other is unhappy with the decision that this three judge panel makes, it can ask for an "en banc" hearing- meaning all the judges of the Court of Appeals (9?) sit and rehear the appeal. After that en banc request is rejected (they usually are), the final stop (just a few blocks up the street, really) would be the Supreme Court.
But in all likelihood, it'll be settled before that. Why? I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will take this case.
>What exactly can they appeal, and what is set in stone?
What comes out today- the "legal conclusions"- are appealable. Basically, Judge Jackson is explaining how he thinks MS has violated the law. As it's a "question of law", he can be reversed by the Court of Appeals. As a higher court, it can rule more authoratatively on what "the law" is.
In contrast, his "findings of fact" are pretty much set in stone. This is due to the presumption that since he sat and listened to all the evidence, he's in a better position than any appeals court to have determined what occured.
>Is this ruling likely to have teeth, or is it only the first move in an endless and boring dance? Can I say "both"? I think that he won't be shy in imposing a remedy, as his findings of fact seem to indicate he's taken a pretty dim view of MS's conduct (and I could be more helpful if someone would mirror the )$#$*# conclusions and I could read it . . . ). I also go with "endless and boring" because both sides have shown that they're willing to sit this out as long as it takes to win- DOJ because it's likely "right", and MS cause . ..well . . .
While the Court of Appeals is likely to be a bit more sympathetic than Judge Jackson, that ain't saying much.
The best MS can hope for is a settlement they get at least *some* input into. I'm very surprised Posner was unable to bring the sides together. He's a brilliant fellow who's quite well respected for his understanding of law and economics- that he couldn't get it done speaks to the chasm between the two sides.
Slashdot Mirror
You're correct - you've got me presuming an implied statement: that a substantial number of "frivolous lawsuits" win.
Wait. You mean these "real Americans" in "the Homeland" are really just a bunch of socialists?!
Someone better tell the GOP!
You're presuming something that simply isn't true. Go ahead, quote me the McDonald's coffee case. Do it after reading the facts and final outcome, though.
And you could weigh the moral impact of every action your boss asks of you (should I take out the garbage? Should I tell this struggling company their product sucks?).
I suspect you'd be pretty annoyed at the "elitist" attitude of lawyers if they decided that they really knew what was best for the world, and decided not to take your discrimination case because, let's face it, whiners are bad for productivity.
and it's businessmen who buy the laws. Don't insult the messenger in order to obscure the point. Just as it's whiny and greedy people - not lawyers - who are responsible for frivolous lawsuits, it's businesses that are focused on profits by all means necessary that are responsible for this result.
If the police flip out over something we do, they're overreacting idiots that don't understand technology.
But if the police don't flip out over something we do, they're underreacting idiots who aren't keeping us safe.
Mmkay.
Well, my belief system says that you're a douchebag. What, I should have kept that to myself? Huh. I wonder if that advice might apply elsewhere. Funny, eh?
Larry's been hanging out with us for too long. He seriously thinks that he can get legislators to sign onto a CC labeling (licensing?) scheme? And if he does, the big stick if they violate it is . . . wait for it . . . voter outrage!
Heh. Yeah. That's been working just great for us, don't you think?
called a Sony VAIO.
anywhere near an appropriate analogy.
Is that you?
Damn accountants.
ought not to be parents.
They shouldn't have made their openers to operate on this frequency, in the first place. It's no secret which frequencies are allocated to the US gov't. It's laziness on the part of the company.
I spent a good part of my childhood just a few miles away from the lucky side of the Iron Curtain. One of the things that our teachers told us was so bad about East Germany was the fact that they "kept files on their citizens! Normal people, like you and me!"
So what do we tell the kids, today?
Seriously, does ANYONE think this will actually stop him from having any of those things? All you do is send someone out to buy those things privately (which any of thousands of dealers will be happy to sell to), and he brings them back. What, is North Korean Customs going to stop them at the border?
Eesh.
How about political conversation and information? YouTube is, without a doubt, one of the biggest boons to increasing the participatory part of the national conversation. I'm thrilled to see politicians, people, and orgs all over YouTube.
Actually, very little value is returned to the US Treasury from the license holders for AM and FM stations (commercial or not). The vast majority of licensees paid nothing for their licenses, and the yearly fees (called "reg fees") are directed back to fund the FCC's operating budget (i.e., there's no net positive flow of cash to the public). There have been some auctions of licenses that would create smaller stations (mostly in the middle of nowhere) in recent years, but the net take on those auctions has been neglible.
Station owners would argue that they pay "rent" to the public in terms of public interest programming requirements, but then I'd point out that that's all that crap you hear on Sunday morning at 7am, and you'd realize what a joke it was. Wish I could have got in while the getting was good . . .
It's Kevin Martin.
.)
(and thank GOD its not Michael Powell . .
No such thing as "broadcast tax". I think it's just a sloppy summary, as I didn't see any claims about "broadcast taxes" in my perusal of the WOXY site. If they were an actual broadcast operation, I suppose you could call the annual regulatory fees that the FCC imposes on most licensed spectrum users "broadcast taxes", but the FCC doesn't have any jurisdiction over internet radio.
. . .except mine.
That seems to be what folks really think.
Everyone hates lawyers until they need them. Lawyers suck, can you help me with this divorce? Lawyers suck, hey, he stole that from me! Lawyers suck, what does this mean?
Actually, choosing the USD was pretty much the best choice. It's a stable currency, it's already widely quoted as a standard in transactions, and the system used to govern the currency (the US Federal Reserve) is relatively transparent. The nearest thing to that would be the GBP, or even (ahem, haha, excuse me) the Euro. I think the Euro needs to sort things out in it's own back yard first, before it can seriously compete with the USD or the Yen as an international currency (not to be confused with EU mandates that it be used- I'm talking about actual market acceptance). The USD has also been adopted by a number of other countries (either directly, as in the case of Panama, or indirectly through fixed exchange rates, such as the Cayman Islands). I am not suggesting that the USD is an ideal base currency, but I certainly think it's the best choice in existence right now.
Thanks for the clarification. That said, I can't imagine it's any harder for an officer to conjure up "reasonable suspicion" in France than it is in the US.
I had the good fortune to attend a taping earlier today of a roundtable discussion on this topic that included Mark Rotenberg (EPIC), Bob Pitofsky (FTC chair), and Lance Cottrel (Pres. of Anonymizer.com, Inc.). This very issue came up, and it was pointed out that the "superior" European protections only applied to information collection by *private companies*, not the government. US citizens have a much higher level of protection from their own government (e.g., nothing more than the sig of a managing police officer needed for a wiretap in France). That said, it may not be much, but it's worth pointing out in the face of those thinking the European approach is the best thing going.
>I mean, how many appeals avenues are left?
.well . . .
The (presumed) appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. There will be a three judge panel that hears this appeal (in contrast to the single judge- Jackson- sitting in District court). Theoretically, if one side or the other is unhappy with the decision that this three judge panel makes, it can ask for an "en banc" hearing- meaning all the judges of the Court of Appeals (9?) sit and rehear the appeal. After that en banc request is rejected (they usually are), the final stop (just a few blocks up the street, really) would be the Supreme Court.
But in all likelihood, it'll be settled before that. Why? I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will take this case.
>What exactly can they appeal, and what is set in stone?
What comes out today- the "legal conclusions"- are appealable. Basically, Judge Jackson is explaining how he thinks MS has violated the law. As it's a "question of law", he can be reversed by the Court of Appeals. As a higher court, it can rule more authoratatively on what "the law" is.
In contrast, his "findings of fact" are pretty much set in stone. This is due to the presumption that since he sat and listened to all the evidence, he's in a better position than any appeals court to have determined what occured.
>Is this ruling likely to have teeth, or is it only the first move in an endless and boring dance?
Can I say "both"? I think that he won't be shy in imposing a remedy, as his findings of fact seem to indicate he's taken a pretty dim view of MS's conduct (and I could be more helpful if someone would mirror the )$#$*# conclusions and I could read it . . . ). I also go with "endless and boring" because both sides have shown that they're willing to sit this out as long as it takes to win- DOJ because it's likely "right", and MS cause . .
While the Court of Appeals is likely to be a bit more sympathetic than Judge Jackson, that ain't saying much.
The best MS can hope for is a settlement they get at least *some* input into. I'm very surprised Posner was unable to bring the sides together. He's a brilliant fellow who's quite well respected for his understanding of law and economics- that he couldn't get it done speaks to the chasm between the two sides.