The judges will respond to motions from the defendants to transfer, but in this district Judges Everingham and Ward default to favoring the plaintiff's choice and have consistenly applied a stringent test to those requests. Only if the defendants can show by predefined factors that their proposed venue is "clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by the plaintiff will they allow a transfer (here's a blog that tracks the court's activity).
The judges don't seem to mind the extra load. In fact they pride themselves how their "streamlining" of the process for trying patent cases has drawn in so much activity. They've fondly nicknamed their court "the rocket docket".
I don't know how the judges rationalize it but the spin from the lawyers is that "the Eastern District is 'a great venue,' because the judges there are experts on patent matters, and there is always a pool of experienced patent lawyers available to serve as local counsel". I guess it's just Eastern Texas good fortune to have this natural resource of patent lawyer pools.
Another lawyer shares this insight into his clients motivations "they prefer to go to... where the judges have the expertise"
So the story goes that the ED of Texas gets so many patent cases because they're so experienced and they got this expertise from doing so many patent cases. Rinse, lather, repeat! Ain't circular logic fun?
Unless the proposal includes some tactics for getting the parents involvement, it'll be doomed before it starts.
Education happens outside of the classroom just as much as in it and a child's mindset regarding education (no matter the field) is strongly influenced by their parents' mindset.
In a word, yes. Salmonella and E.coli have been going at it for some time now--why not this bug?
Of course, as another poster responded, there are other ways the DNA from these UV resistant bugs could get into our more familiar bacteria: transformation and transduction. Transformation would happen even if you killed the bacteria.
And how long before they can interbreed with the bacteria down here and pass on the UV resistance trait to some that currently plague us? This whole venture doesn't seem terriibly well thought out.
I know it's supposed to be "news" that crime continues to exist despite (and sometimes with the facilitation of) the internet, but I can't seem to muster up the energy.
I'm sure that when the phone was popularized there were initially stories about how people would use this new technology for dastardly crimes, such as getting pizzas delivered to the wrong address, but do we really at this point need be kept informed of the breaking development that yes, new technologies will be used by criminals as well as law-abiding citizens?
Maybe I'm just crabby and this is a good old heads-up.
FYI:
"People in southern Nigeria, who live among 3,100 miles of pipelines, are often so poor that it is a fact of life that vandals puncture holes in the pipelines and residents fill buckets with oil to sell in an underground economy."
As is typical in our current economy, the abundance of natural resources typically translates into the abuse and impoverishment of the people who live near the resources.
Back on topic, if you had read the original article it goes into great detail on how the Gates Foundation annually gives away 5% of its value towards certain causes, only to directly counter those causes with the investments it makes with the remaining 95%. This isn't Gates hating, this is the Gates Foundation being hypocritical.
Or not. Humans are not cash registers. There is a condition known as spite, which is ego-driven and will frequently cause people do things not economically in their interest. Look to recent U.S. elections for widespread examples.
How is this not also a flaw of collaborative closed source software? Are they not also susceptible to egos??
At least when egos get in the way of OSS, the community can muddle along with the source code. When the same thing happens to closed source software, what are we left with?
I hate to say it, and I'm only going to say it this once...
From looking at your recent deluge of Digg promoting posts it would appear either someone has been using your ID without your permission, or you're a prevaricating masochist.
So, if you have Native American and/or Celtic ancestry...
Strangely enough, given that the researchers in the article may have been too conservative in their model, your statement may apply to everyone currently alive!
[anecdotal evidence] [moral relativity] [faulty logic: more stores does not equal more buying power, more money equals more buying power.] [unsupported assertion]
[unsupported assertion] [faulty logic: price of stock is no indicator of corporate greed or lack thereof] [unsupported assertion] [faulty generalization, not to mention failing to account for other reasons why the price of one item would be kept below market: loss-leader]
[undocumented claims][false reasoning][undocumented claims][incomplete comparison: what are Walmart's numbers? Does the legal requirement have anything to do with it?]
[anecdotal evidence][unsupported assertion combined with generalization]
[ad hominem attack][faulty assumption: will we tolerate anything in the name of lower prices?] [faulty assumption: is Walmart really the only store offering affordable prices?][unsupported assertion][undocumented claim][unsupported assertion][statement of opinion, thankfully labelled as such] [unsupported assertion][unsupported assertion]
Connecting your Tivo to an online broadcast directory like Yahoo's is fine--essentially working with an online TV Guide to program your Tivo.
How about taking it the next step and including directories for video podcasts, iFilm, or even offloading your digital video camera while you're still on vacation, from the hotel room?
By the legal definition I would say that Microsoft is a monopoly and this position has been upheld in court. As Adam Smith pointed out monopolies are the enemy of good management and therefore antithetical to a free market. It is in the best interest of healthy competition to regulate monopolies and restrain them from abusing their power.
Ah the "vote with your dollars" fallacy. Dollars for votes means those with the most dollars get the mot votes. This is not a recipe for democracy.
The burden is on the vendor to first comply with our laws and respect our citizens' rights, *then* worry about making a profit. The burden is not on the citizens to create solutions for the vendor--if so what's next? Will it be the citizens' duty to create closed circuit security systems to help retailers curb shoplifters? Certainly not, this way lies idiocy.
The free market says that if you want to do business here, you are welcome to so long as you play by our rules. The specifics of how you abide by the rules are up to you, they're certainly not the citizens problem. If you find that you don't know how to run a business here and abide by our rules, then get out of the market and make way for one of your competitors who surely will.
It is not the citizens' job to create a solution for the vendor.
The vendor is allowed the privilege of offering its wares in the market so long as it respects the rights of the citizens. At least in the US, among those rights is the right to fair use of creative works ("intellectual property" is a misleading, inaccurate term).
The burden is on the vendors to adjust their wares to fit our legal system. That's their price of admission for operating in our markets. If the monopoly does not like the market conditions, they are free to leave--that's how a true free market works. Some enterprising group will surely take their place and find a way to respect the rights of the citizens while still making a profit.
You would compare the defenses of a U.S. nuclear sub to this nuke-in-a-pot? Ok let's! According to TFA, the Russian nuke-to-go has an ID based entry system---ooooh that ought to stop a terrorist in their tracks. And the salesmen claim that they cold have a Boeing drop on it--gosh if the salesman really say that, well then... oh wait... they're *salesmen* to quote you:... *sigh*... nevermind...
You're right, a saleman's reassurance and some ID card entry system should be equal security to a U.S. sub's.
Slashdot Mirror
Because fortunately there is no history of humanity ever acting with intentional malice. #phew
The judges will respond to motions from the defendants to transfer, but in this district Judges Everingham and Ward default to favoring the plaintiff's choice and have consistenly applied a stringent test to those requests. Only if the defendants can show by predefined factors that their proposed venue is "clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by the plaintiff will they allow a transfer (here's a blog that tracks the court's activity). The judges don't seem to mind the extra load. In fact they pride themselves how their "streamlining" of the process for trying patent cases has drawn in so much activity. They've fondly nicknamed their court "the rocket docket".
I don't know how the judges rationalize it but the spin from the lawyers is that "the Eastern District is 'a great venue,' because the judges there are experts on patent matters, and there is always a pool of experienced patent lawyers available to serve as local counsel". I guess it's just Eastern Texas good fortune to have this natural resource of patent lawyer pools. Another lawyer shares this insight into his clients motivations "they prefer to go to ... where the judges have the expertise"
So the story goes that the ED of Texas gets so many patent cases because they're so experienced and they got this expertise from doing so many patent cases. Rinse, lather, repeat! Ain't circular logic fun?
Please tell me the food vendors will be offering an OSI seven layer cake.
Unless the proposal includes some tactics for getting the parents involvement, it'll be doomed before it starts. Education happens outside of the classroom just as much as in it and a child's mindset regarding education (no matter the field) is strongly influenced by their parents' mindset.
In a word, yes. Salmonella and E.coli have been going at it for some time now--why not this bug? Of course, as another poster responded, there are other ways the DNA from these UV resistant bugs could get into our more familiar bacteria: transformation and transduction. Transformation would happen even if you killed the bacteria.
And how long before they can interbreed with the bacteria down here and pass on the UV resistance trait to some that currently plague us? This whole venture doesn't seem terriibly well thought out.
Nope, just confused. It appears I'm not alone.
I know it's supposed to be "news" that crime continues to exist despite (and sometimes with the facilitation of) the internet, but I can't seem to muster up the energy. I'm sure that when the phone was popularized there were initially stories about how people would use this new technology for dastardly crimes, such as getting pizzas delivered to the wrong address, but do we really at this point need be kept informed of the breaking development that yes, new technologies will be used by criminals as well as law-abiding citizens? Maybe I'm just crabby and this is a good old heads-up.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/071900-105.htm
As is typical in our current economy, the abundance of natural resources typically translates into the abuse and impoverishment of the people who live near the resources.
Back on topic, if you had read the original article it goes into great detail on how the Gates Foundation annually gives away 5% of its value towards certain causes, only to directly counter those causes with the investments it makes with the remaining 95%. This isn't Gates hating, this is the Gates Foundation being hypocritical.
Or not. Humans are not cash registers. There is a condition known as spite, which is ego-driven and will frequently cause people do things not economically in their interest. Look to recent U.S. elections for widespread examples.
At least when egos get in the way of OSS, the community can muddle along with the source code. When the same thing happens to closed source software, what are we left with?
From looking at your recent deluge of Digg promoting posts it would appear either someone has been using your ID without your permission, or you're a prevaricating masochist.
Hmm, think I'll grab a metal umbrella and go stand outside in this lightning storm to test that out.
Don't wait up, I'll be back in a flash...
Strangely enough, given that the researchers in the article may have been too conservative in their model, your statement may apply to everyone currently alive!
Here's how I read your post:
[unsupported assertion] [speculation]
[anecdotal evidence] [moral relativity] [faulty logic: more stores does not equal more buying power, more money equals more buying power.] [unsupported assertion]
[unsupported assertion] [faulty logic: price of stock is no indicator of corporate greed or lack thereof] [unsupported assertion] [faulty generalization, not to mention failing to account for other reasons why the price of one item would be kept below market: loss-leader]
[undocumented claims][false reasoning][undocumented claims][incomplete comparison: what are Walmart's numbers? Does the legal requirement have anything to do with it?]
[anecdotal evidence][unsupported assertion combined with generalization]
[ad hominem attack][faulty assumption: will we tolerate anything in the name of lower prices?] [faulty assumption: is Walmart really the only store offering affordable prices?][unsupported assertion][undocumented claim][unsupported assertion][statement of opinion, thankfully labelled as such] [unsupported assertion][unsupported assertion]
Connecting your Tivo to an online broadcast directory like Yahoo's is fine--essentially working with an online TV Guide to program your Tivo.
How about taking it the next step and including directories for video podcasts, iFilm, or even offloading your digital video camera while you're still on vacation, from the hotel room?
Coincidence in the timing with the release of the video iPod? I guess NBC knows a bandwagon when they see one.
Of course such speculation is only relevant if NBC will be releasing their shows in a compatible format.
Monopoly--1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill (Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)
By the legal definition I would say that Microsoft is a monopoly and this position has been upheld in court. As Adam Smith pointed out monopolies are the enemy of good management and therefore antithetical to a free market. It is in the best interest of healthy competition to regulate monopolies and restrain them from abusing their power.
Ah the "vote with your dollars" fallacy. Dollars for votes means those with the most dollars get the mot votes. This is not a recipe for democracy.
The burden is on the vendor to first comply with our laws and respect our citizens' rights, *then* worry about making a profit. The burden is not on the citizens to create solutions for the vendor--if so what's next? Will it be the citizens' duty to create closed circuit security systems to help retailers curb shoplifters? Certainly not, this way lies idiocy.
The free market says that if you want to do business here, you are welcome to so long as you play by our rules. The specifics of how you abide by the rules are up to you, they're certainly not the citizens problem. If you find that you don't know how to run a business here and abide by our rules, then get out of the market and make way for one of your competitors who surely will.
It is not the citizens' job to create a solution for the vendor.
The vendor is allowed the privilege of offering its wares in the market so long as it respects the rights of the citizens. At least in the US, among those rights is the right to fair use of creative works ("intellectual property" is a misleading, inaccurate term).
The burden is on the vendors to adjust their wares to fit our legal system. That's their price of admission for operating in our markets. If the monopoly does not like the market conditions, they are free to leave--that's how a true free market works. Some enterprising group will surely take their place and find a way to respect the rights of the citizens while still making a profit.
Your logic is illogical:
Nuclear waste == bad
But, Coal waste == bad
Therefore Nuclear waste == uh, good?
Not to mention your false dichotomy.
Not to mention that coal waste never gave rogue nations cances at making weapons of mass destruction.
Has the "state of the technology" found some way to deal with the 100000 years of waste?
Oh, not yet?
Ok, then put a sock in it.
You would compare the defenses of a U.S. nuclear sub to this nuke-in-a-pot? Ok let's! According to TFA, the Russian nuke-to-go has an ID based entry system---ooooh that ought to stop a terrorist in their tracks. And the salesmen claim that they cold have a Boeing drop on it--gosh if the salesman really say that, well then ... oh wait ... they're *salesmen* to quote you: ... *sigh* ... nevermind...
You're right, a saleman's reassurance and some ID card entry system should be equal security to a U.S. sub's.
What was I thinking.
And the subs can also defend themselves from pretty much anything, which is more than I can say for this Russian terrorist honeypot.
In other words, the cost of 200k is just the downpayment--your installment plan will kick in when the Chechens blow your terrorist honeypot skyhigh.