Luckern is an administrative law judge. They are the sort of judges who review and administer federal regulations to take the load off of the federal judiciary, like tax and bankruptcy and immigration courts (and kill the taxpayer with redundancy). Ad law judges are known as "Article I judges," as opposed to Article III judges in the judiciary. Kind of a misnomer, since Article I of the Constitution never actually mentions judges.
Anyway, my understanding is that the IT Commission itself - not judges, but political appointees - will review this decision. And even if the ITC overrules the decision, they cannot award damages, just prevent offending imports (I guess that would apply to Apple products, since they are assembled in China). And most importantly, any decision by any Article I court is reviewable by real judges, i.e., Article III judges (US District courts, the DC circuit, SCOTUS). So I'm thinking a sitting judge, even Article I, is going to know the law better than some politicos (i.e., even if they overturned him, he'd likely be upheld on appeal).
Plus there are lawsuits involved - both Kodak and Apple are suing each other - so this will be going on for a while, and the ITC won't have the final word.
BTW, IAAL and this ITC stuff was new to me. Learn something every day.
Apple has actually fought with (and of course won) third party vendors on the App store to protect customer privacy. It isn't just that 30% fee the vendors hate - they want your data too! Well sorry, you can't have it on iOS. In fact, one of the great selling points for the iOS ecosystem (vs Android) is you can just enter your credit card with Apple, and be able to use it for all purchases, simply by entering a password. No re-entering your info for every purchase, no privacy or data mining risks.
For all those hating on Apple for daring to ask for a cut (for, you know, shareholders) on those selling stuff on its 200 million credit card ecosystem, I can't imagine an argument you could possibly make for Google being even close on privacy issues. Don't let your Android dogma run over your Karma.
This is way less of a threat than the Slingbox, which has been around for years. I've been streaming my TiVo and cable content to myself over the Net for 5 years. And of course they have iPad and iPhone apps now...
"Take that $1000 a year and put it into an IRA. You will get more from that than your cell phone could ever return"
I trade stocks, options, ETFs. etc scores of times a year. Not exactly a day trader, but close. I bought my iPhone largely so I could do trades on the road and wouldn't be tethered to my computers at home during market hours. I've already done several trades on my iPhone, and a HELLUVA lot more money was involved than a measly $1K. The iPhone has been a godsend in terms of liberating me from home from 6:30AM-1:30PM PST.
The tsunami did. And I didn't say just remote power via cable. I said battery backup power not below sea level that can be flooded.
No solution is perfect - wind power has killed more people than nuke power - but the evidence suggests that had the power of the Japanese reactors been protected from water, NOT earthquake, these nuclear incidents might have been averted.
Should my investments eventually allow me to live on the water. I've seen guys watercool their PCs with their swimming pool as the heat exchanger, why not the ocean?
But this tsunami thing does have me rethinking the "live right on the water" plan.
And they do have their own cooling, as well as battery backup for cooling. In the case of many of these failed reactors, the battery backup was in the basement, where it was flooded. If only there was some technology that could have saved the day, like not putting batteries in the basement below sea level. Someday...
It can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but the reactor designs were not the problem. All of these cooling problems could have been solved by some sort of waterproof backup power, even if it had to be stored 50 miles away and delivered via an underground cable that comes up under the reactors. Some of these reactors' cooling systems failed because the battery backup power was in the farking basement for crissakes! Below sea level on an Island! Totally flooded. I'm a social science (excuse the contradiction of terms) and I know better than that.
How hard would it be to either 1) keep battery backup at a high point above a nuke plant* (I know, weight, whatever, engineer around it) or 2) the plan I mentioned above, the same redundancy that data centers have, redundant power located elsewhere. Either would have likely saved these reactors.
That there were plenty of villains. But a government-created enterprise, which wouldn't have existed in an actual free-market, buying up loans, allowing banks to make more loans (which they otherwise couldn't have under capital requirements), clearly added to the problem. Of course the Countrywides and American Home Mortgages were villains as well. But why were, uh, are government-created, taxpayer-backed monsters adding to the problem? Countrywide and AHM are long gone, but Freddie and Fannie are still buying the damned loans!
Why on earth would I want to deflect blame? I wouldn't want to hold stock in those zombie, parasitic investment banks if you gave it to me for free. But the truth is the truth: Too much government intervention was the problem, not a lack of it.
Most intelligence agencies, were convinced Saddam had WMD's or was trying to get them. There were also Al Qaeda links, and of course is attempts to buy yellowcake from Niger. Whether or not they thought he was worth deposing over it was another matter.
HAHAHAHA! Thanks for a great laugh. So, we are in the process of enforcing your morals on the rest of the world?
Actually, it seems like the world is in the process of enforcing our morals as we sit back and watch. I believe I said the opposite about Iraq, but you chose to take from my post what you wanted for your agenda.
But I'm confused; in what moral universe is allowing Saddam and his henchmen to rape his enemies' daughters in front of them, throw dissidents into tree shredders, acid baths, or naked into steel coffins to slowly bake in the desert sun the righteous path? My point was that while throwing our a clearly evil, ruthless dictator is a moral good, there are a lot of countries like that and we can't rebuild them all, due to a lack of domestic and international political will.
I wonder, if you walked outside of your house, and some guy on the street from some country where women were treated as chattel, was beating his wife to death, would you intervene? How about if you were in his country, would you "enforce your morals" on him and try to stop it? Especially if several native people on the street wanted you to? Even if you had to kill him to do it? Is it really morally different when it is 10, 100, or 1,000,000 people you are defending? How big must the number get to where it's no longer any of your business? What was the Stalin quote, one person killed is a tragedy, 1,000,000 is a statistic?
Apart from the fact that our intervention caused Iraq to splinter into factions and result in tens of thousands of deaths because of sectarian violence
You want to make an omelet, you're going to break some eggs. A lot of people died in our American Revolution, and even more in Part II, the Civil War. I believe, the vast majority of Iraqis who were not part of the small (10%) pro-Saddam Sunni Baathists wanted his ass gone. But today, a determined billionaire despot with modern weapons can never be deposed by a citizenry with muskets (of course in Egypt, Mubarak lost said military). Without someone's outside help, that sociopathic family would continue to terrorize Iraq forever.
I think 50 years from now, assuming Iraq is a pluralist democracy, The US-led Iraq War and rebuilding will be looked at as a moral good.
the moral high-ground does not fly when we're guilty of far worse.
I'm not sure to what you are referring, but it is lunacy to suggest that America ever did the things Saddam did to his people, let alone in any of our lifetimes.
Bush did make the humanitarian case against Hussein as well. In fact, Saddam did gas thousands of his own people. And that questionable intelligence was propagated by every major intel agency in the world, not just the US. Saddam was as ruthless as dictators get. His idea of a fun Saturday night was to break out VHS tapes of dissidents being tortured, with some Jiffy Pop.
I think the Iraq War was a political disaster, and would have advised against it on those grounds, but was morally just, WMD's or not. Just as you can't justify a warrant by what you find after the search, you can't impute 20/20 hindsight on probable cause after the search either. Saddam did have like 16 months to cover his tracks before the US invasion. Just sayin'...
And the French don't have cushy oil deals with Gaddafi as they did with Saddam, the real reason Chirac opposed the Iraq War so fervently. There are wars for oil, and there are anti-war movements for oil as well.
And going back 30 years to prevent the civilian repression to date? Or even the last two weeks of slaughter?
And wasn't this one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, i.e., humanitarian? Seems like the French suddenly find this rationale important now that the US wasn't leading the charge. Or is it that the French don't have the same cushy oil deals with the Colonel that they did with Saddam?
Slashdot Mirror
Does that apply to Apple and Microsoft and Google as well?
that only dorks wear cellphones on their hip. Keep fighting the stereotypes, guys.
Luckern is an administrative law judge. They are the sort of judges who review and administer federal regulations to take the load off of the federal judiciary, like tax and bankruptcy and immigration courts (and kill the taxpayer with redundancy). Ad law judges are known as "Article I judges," as opposed to Article III judges in the judiciary. Kind of a misnomer, since Article I of the Constitution never actually mentions judges.
Anyway, my understanding is that the IT Commission itself - not judges, but political appointees - will review this decision. And even if the ITC overrules the decision, they cannot award damages, just prevent offending imports (I guess that would apply to Apple products, since they are assembled in China). And most importantly, any decision by any Article I court is reviewable by real judges, i.e., Article III judges (US District courts, the DC circuit, SCOTUS). So I'm thinking a sitting judge, even Article I, is going to know the law better than some politicos (i.e., even if they overturned him, he'd likely be upheld on appeal).
Plus there are lawsuits involved - both Kodak and Apple are suing each other - so this will be going on for a while, and the ITC won't have the final word.
BTW, IAAL and this ITC stuff was new to me. Learn something every day.
Apple has actually fought with (and of course won) third party vendors on the App store to protect customer privacy. It isn't just that 30% fee the vendors hate - they want your data too! Well sorry, you can't have it on iOS. In fact, one of the great selling points for the iOS ecosystem (vs Android) is you can just enter your credit card with Apple, and be able to use it for all purchases, simply by entering a password. No re-entering your info for every purchase, no privacy or data mining risks.
For all those hating on Apple for daring to ask for a cut (for, you know, shareholders) on those selling stuff on its 200 million credit card ecosystem, I can't imagine an argument you could possibly make for Google being even close on privacy issues. Don't let your Android dogma run over your Karma.
This is way less of a threat than the Slingbox, which has been around for years. I've been streaming my TiVo and cable content to myself over the Net for 5 years. And of course they have iPad and iPhone apps now...
From my lips, as well as ETOH and H20.
who was around 63 as of the first episode of Enterprise, making her actually around 73 today, assuming the canon ran simultaneously with current time.
Jolene Blalock is a real person who is 36.
T'Pol is still looking pretty hot for being in her 60's.
Great analysis, Dr., of someone you've never met. Do you give discount rates for patients you actually see in person?
"Take that $1000 a year and put it into an IRA. You will get more from that than your cell phone could ever return"
I trade stocks, options, ETFs. etc scores of times a year. Not exactly a day trader, but close. I bought my iPhone largely so I could do trades on the road and wouldn't be tethered to my computers at home during market hours. I've already done several trades on my iPhone, and a HELLUVA lot more money was involved than a measly $1K. The iPhone has been a godsend in terms of liberating me from home from 6:30AM-1:30PM PST.
Is put the damn batteries on the roof, instead of in the basement. That's 1 hull, not 1000.
The BATTERIES failed because they were flooded by the tsunami. Not because of the earthquake.
The tsunami did. And I didn't say just remote power via cable. I said battery backup power not below sea level that can be flooded.
No solution is perfect - wind power has killed more people than nuke power - but the evidence suggests that had the power of the Japanese reactors been protected from water, NOT earthquake, these nuclear incidents might have been averted.
The batteries got flooded, not damaged by the earthquake. The power cable would be yet more redundancy.
Should my investments eventually allow me to live on the water. I've seen guys watercool their PCs with their swimming pool as the heat exchanger, why not the ocean?
But this tsunami thing does have me rethinking the "live right on the water" plan.
Holy shit, does anyone read anymore? The battery backup systems were flooded, because at last some of them were in the basement.
And they do have their own cooling, as well as battery backup for cooling. In the case of many of these failed reactors, the battery backup was in the basement, where it was flooded. If only there was some technology that could have saved the day, like not putting batteries in the basement below sea level. Someday...
It can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but the reactor designs were not the problem. All of these cooling problems could have been solved by some sort of waterproof backup power, even if it had to be stored 50 miles away and delivered via an underground cable that comes up under the reactors. Some of these reactors' cooling systems failed because the battery backup power was in the farking basement for crissakes! Below sea level on an Island! Totally flooded. I'm a social science (excuse the contradiction of terms) and I know better than that.
How hard would it be to either 1) keep battery backup at a high point above a nuke plant* (I know, weight, whatever, engineer around it) or 2) the plan I mentioned above, the same redundancy that data centers have, redundant power located elsewhere. Either would have likely saved these reactors.
*Patent pending.
That there were plenty of villains. But a government-created enterprise, which wouldn't have existed in an actual free-market, buying up loans, allowing banks to make more loans (which they otherwise couldn't have under capital requirements), clearly added to the problem. Of course the Countrywides and American Home Mortgages were villains as well. But why were, uh, are government-created, taxpayer-backed monsters adding to the problem? Countrywide and AHM are long gone, but Freddie and Fannie are still buying the damned loans!
Why on earth would I want to deflect blame? I wouldn't want to hold stock in those zombie, parasitic investment banks if you gave it to me for free. But the truth is the truth: Too much government intervention was the problem, not a lack of it.
Most intelligence agencies, were convinced Saddam had WMD's or was trying to get them. There were also Al Qaeda links, and of course is attempts to buy yellowcake from Niger. Whether or not they thought he was worth deposing over it was another matter.
HAHAHAHA! Thanks for a great laugh. So, we are in the process of enforcing your morals on the rest of the world?
Actually, it seems like the world is in the process of enforcing our morals as we sit back and watch. I believe I said the opposite about Iraq, but you chose to take from my post what you wanted for your agenda.
But I'm confused; in what moral universe is allowing Saddam and his henchmen to rape his enemies' daughters in front of them, throw dissidents into tree shredders, acid baths, or naked into steel coffins to slowly bake in the desert sun the righteous path? My point was that while throwing our a clearly evil, ruthless dictator is a moral good, there are a lot of countries like that and we can't rebuild them all, due to a lack of domestic and international political will.
I wonder, if you walked outside of your house, and some guy on the street from some country where women were treated as chattel, was beating his wife to death, would you intervene? How about if you were in his country, would you "enforce your morals" on him and try to stop it? Especially if several native people on the street wanted you to? Even if you had to kill him to do it? Is it really morally different when it is 10, 100, or 1,000,000 people you are defending? How big must the number get to where it's no longer any of your business? What was the Stalin quote, one person killed is a tragedy, 1,000,000 is a statistic?
Apart from the fact that our intervention caused Iraq to splinter into factions and result in tens of thousands of deaths because of sectarian violence
You want to make an omelet, you're going to break some eggs. A lot of people died in our American Revolution, and even more in Part II, the Civil War. I believe, the vast majority of Iraqis who were not part of the small (10%) pro-Saddam Sunni Baathists wanted his ass gone. But today, a determined billionaire despot with modern weapons can never be deposed by a citizenry with muskets (of course in Egypt, Mubarak lost said military). Without someone's outside help, that sociopathic family would continue to terrorize Iraq forever.
I think 50 years from now, assuming Iraq is a pluralist democracy, The US-led Iraq War and rebuilding will be looked at as a moral good.
the moral high-ground does not fly when we're guilty of far worse.
I'm not sure to what you are referring, but it is lunacy to suggest that America ever did the things Saddam did to his people, let alone in any of our lifetimes.
Bush did make the humanitarian case against Hussein as well. In fact, Saddam did gas thousands of his own people. And that questionable intelligence was propagated by every major intel agency in the world, not just the US. Saddam was as ruthless as dictators get. His idea of a fun Saturday night was to break out VHS tapes of dissidents being tortured, with some Jiffy Pop.
I think the Iraq War was a political disaster, and would have advised against it on those grounds, but was morally just, WMD's or not. Just as you can't justify a warrant by what you find after the search, you can't impute 20/20 hindsight on probable cause after the search either. Saddam did have like 16 months to cover his tracks before the US invasion. Just sayin'...
And the French don't have cushy oil deals with Gaddafi as they did with Saddam, the real reason Chirac opposed the Iraq War so fervently. There are wars for oil, and there are anti-war movements for oil as well.
And going back 30 years to prevent the civilian repression to date? Or even the last two weeks of slaughter?
And wasn't this one of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq, i.e., humanitarian? Seems like the French suddenly find this rationale important now that the US wasn't leading the charge. Or is it that the French don't have the same cushy oil deals with the Colonel that they did with Saddam?
Enjoy the meteor.