I hated the ending. The unilateral decision to get rid of all technology for everybody was both absurd, short-sighted, and just plain stupid. Why not give people a choice at least? And why the hell would the humans decide to live like cavemen on a strange planet without at least medical technology? There are probably viruses, bacteria, and parasites that would wipe out the colonials. So are we to believe that simple non-life threatening infections now all of a sudden become deadly because of the basic lack of antibiotics?
And what about food? With farming and all what happens during a drought? Hell, what about simple things like books to read, pencils and pens to write with? The whole premise that the colonials all, all off a sudden decide to become essentially Amish after living with technology all their lives is just catastrophically asinine. Fuck, why not at least not destroy the ships in orbit, leave one Raptor on Earth so that the different settlements can be checked in on from time-to-time. Hell, what happened to the sense of wonder and awe of the colonials in that why wouldn't they at least search for other inhabitable planets just in case Earth like gets hit by a comet or asteroid or some other natural disaster befalls Earth and the Colonials need to get the hell outta there.
Ug, what an unbelievably crappy ass implausible ending to an otherwise awesome series... Am I the only one that feels like this???
When I first glanced at the headline I thought it said "Bad METH" and I was like, WTF!!??, CERN must be driving its scientist to 72 hour work binges, that's odd. Of course, upon closer inspection, I saw it was "math" not "meth" and I thought "damn, this would have been much more interesting from the meth angle".... oh well.
I think we are acting like a dick because the current myopic administration is staffed by dicks... this movie's subject and main character remind me of Bush...I just wish Karma would eventually catch up to Bush and his failed policies.
Actually, Bush did not need to sign the Kyoto treaty because it was already signed by Clinton. The whole Bush/Kyoto line of discussion is bunk in that it was up to the Senate to ratify it and they failed to. Interestingly enough, none of the Democrats in the Senate at the time really made any real effort to get it ratified (I mention Dems, only because they claim to be more "green" than Repubs). Matter of fact, I don't ever recall Gore taking up the "ratify Kyoto" mantel at all after Clinton signed it.
Of course, the debate is that Kyoto would have had devestating effects on the U.S. economy.
anyway, kinda convinent now that Gore is all about the environment as opposed to 8 years ago. Just a thought, not a judgment.
Bankrupt them how? Viacom v. Google is about copyright infringement not patent and does not involve the complicated relationship between IBM, SCO, and a multitude of programmers and contracts...and not too mention linux code (or computer code for this and that), etc.
If anything, a copyright case is far simplier than a patent as there is no question that Viacom owns the copyrights in question as opposed to a patent case where there is claim construction and questions of patent validity, which itself involves loads, and loads of discovery and expensive expert witnesses.
This is not to say that the Viacom case will be very easy, it is just the issues and logistics involved are not the same as the IBM/SCO.
alleged corruption aside, I think the most disturbing part of your post is that the FCC limited bidding to small businesses owned by women or minorities. I don't know about most people here, but I find this to be blatantly discriminatory... even a form of institutional racism. one has to wonder if such set-asides does more harm than whatever good any kinda of federal contract/bidding goals are in regard to actually at least providing opportunities for people regardless of their race or gender... in this instance, why not just limit bidding to small businesses in general?
Its funny you mention obesity as a problem, which I believe it definitely is...but, then I wonder WTF is all the hoopla about 'thin' models and their supposedly influence on, what, making young girls want to be too thin and having eating problems??? We see stories coming out of Spain and Italy where the government wants to regulate the size of models (which deserves another WTF!! ) and then in New York City, there is debate on the same issue... So, which is it? An epedemic of obesity? or and epedemic of thin models affecting girls body weight?? If anything, it seems obesity is a far graver health problem than being too thin...and really, do "thin" boney models really influence girls that much?
The 7th Circuit's Opinion does not "essentially" open the door for such warrantless searches...read the opinion it discusses and answers your concerns...whether it is satisfactory to you, that is another question.
I don't mean to be snippy, but your post is typical/. crap (yeah, I have been here for years and I should not be surprised)...but, as usual, when it comes to legal opinions, 99% of posters do not bother to read the fucking opinion ("RTFO??")....so here...it is amazing how many/.'s fail to ever read a legal opinion from the numerous cases that are posted here. After reading the opinion, then try to refute its logic and legal basis. Furthermore, Judge Posner is far from an idiot and this is not some capricious opinion either... regardless, there is more to this case that what the initial article lets on... enjoy!
Same Galaxy, Not-in-the-too-distant-future... Somewhere in the Great Victorian Desert
Uncle Dundee: Oy! have you seen bloody Max this mornin? Aunt Maxine: Aye, he said that he had some things to do before he started, so the wanker left early. Uncle Dundee: Did he take those two new bloody droids with him? Aunt Maxine: Aye matey. Uncle Dundee: Well, that nong better have those bloody [wind-to-water] units in the South Ridge repaired by m'day, or there'll be bloody hell to pay . . . give me a vegemite wench!
To be a devil's advocate, if an artist's, actor's, author's, etc, work is being copyright infringed on a grandscale, then perhaps that actually indicates said creator is work the millions they are getting paid. If consumers go through the effort to download/obtain a creator's work without paying for it and view/listen/whatever that work, then that at least means the work holds some value and enjoyment for the consumer, else, why really waste time and effort on something that has no appeal?
Perhaps, the real question to ask is what is the "sweet spot" of price (assuming that there is adequate distribution methods) that yields the most revenue for a piece of work and that actually compels as many of those who would pirate a work to actually pay for? For instance, if 1,000,000 people will splurge say 14 bucks on Justin Timberlakes album when it first came out, how many more people would have bought it for $7? Surely, the same million that bought it at $14 would have bought it at $7, but would, say, 1.5 million more have bought it if it was half-price, including those folks that would have just downloaded the album off of bittorrent? The same goes for DVDs and even movies at the theater, i.e. paying almost $10 to go the theater does seem absurd for many of the movies out there, but if pricing were flexible, for instance, $5 for the latest Saw VII, then more people might be inclined to take a chance and go to the theater...
anyway, my whole point is if something is worth taking the trouble to obtain off of the internet for free, then at some price point, most will probably buy it... even so, if a creator's work is pirated frequently, then that at least validates somewhat that the creator is getting paid their worth.
I have a er..."friend" who is a member of the Academy and gets to vote on the Oscars. One really cool thing about going to her house is that she gets tons of movies from various studios that are vying for nominations for every category... why cool? because she has movies that are still in the theaters, or ones that we never get to see, such as foreign released films, shorts, documentaries, and stuff that is not yet on DVD (yes, usually there is a weekend marathon of movies)
Anyway, the Academy used to send them on regular DVD but one of the restrictions was that members are forbidden from sharing the movies, i.e., letting others borrow them, else they lose their membership and probably get tossed in a cell with a drunk Mel Gibson and Gary Busey... now, they have the movies on a special DVD that only works on special players that are distributed to most members (I think some members still get regular DVDs, although I cannot vouch for this)...
I wonder if Fox just gives out regular DVDs to special people to view? I know a guy I worked for one time used to the president years ago of whatever group gives out the Emmys, but as a member of the..."Emmy group"?...he still gets tons of DVDs of various episodes of all the TV shows on broadcast and cable. As far as I know, they were regular DVDs. (I used to sneak a few out at work and watch them on my computer...during lunch and breaks of course).
It seems if Fox or other networks thought that such episodes were so important,they would not allow unresticted DVDs out into the wild. Hell, it could have been one of Fox's VP's kids that got a hold of 24's premiere and unleashed that baby into the tubes of the interwebs...
I agree...My karma got dinged in a recent iPhone discussion after I pointed out that 3G is a software issue and not a hardware one. My only mistake was not putting up a supporting link. Instead, I was modded down, but noone posted any cites to the contrary... yes, I am a Karma Whore.
As far as "right-wing" media compaines... try Clear Channel Communications and Sinclair broadcasting for starters. They control a lot of local broadcasting (radio and television)...
I would say your analogy is a poor one, only because the crime of dealing drugs is treated differently than child porn possession... as far as I know, the crime of dealing is not a strict liability offense, meaning, the cops have to actually prove a number of elements of the crime, i.e. mens rea, that the person who is charged with dealing the drugs actually dealt them and lots of other pieces of evidence that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the absent homeowner was actually dealing drugs...
Now compare this to possession of child porn, putting aside the fact that the whole charge of child porn unnecessarily inflames a jury's passions and clouds their judgment, I believe possession of child porn is a strict liability offense, meaning, the state does not have to prove mens rea (guilty state of mind)...or intent to possess said child porn...all the state has to do is prove that child porn came from your computer (or was on it) and since you own the computer, you are guilty...in other words, the standard of proof is something far less than reasonable doubt (although, prosecutors don't really admit this). The proscecutor's case is far easier for possession of child porn. He only has to show that someone uploaded it onto Yahoo (or downloaded it), get the IP address, trace it to your computer, then Viola! you are guilty unless you can prove, which is essentially "beyond a reasonble doubt" on your part that someone else did it. The problem being, if you are innocent, do you want to risk going in front of a jury to prove your innocence when the penalty for failure is 40 years or longer? Probably not, that is why prosecutors use the rather questionably constitutional long prison sentences for various child porn laws as bludgeons...
Probably the biggest difference between all other crimes and possession of child porn is that with other crimes, you are innocent until proven guilty...while legislators have apparently turned that essential brick of our Constitution upsidedown when it comes to child porn possession in that you are guilty unless you prove yourself to be innocent.
What has occurred is that the media and politicos have sold a "pedophile" epidemic to the general populace where one really does not exists...crimes do happen, that much is true...but with every horrible crime involving a pedophile that rapes and murders, the media has latched on turning such events as harbingers of an invasion of pedophiles which resulted in poorly thought out laws created from hysteria without any reasonable debate (see Megan's law, Jessica's law, et al). For example, there have been numbers of people being forced to register as sex offenders for acts that have nothing to do with pedophile crimes... or just look at the Conn case with its "risk of injury to a minor" charge...what the fuck does that really mean? Plus, i think the sex registry is a copout in that if these people are still dangerous, then why the hell let them out? Registering as a sex offender is not going to stop them from molesting a child.
Anyway, just my two cents. There will be no rational pedophile/child porn laws until somebody who is power, i.e., imagine if this kid was John McCain's? do you think the prosecutor would have proceeded differently? hell ya... the only reason Matt was able to avoid going to trial is because he parents were fortunate enough to be able to afford a very good attorney. Imagine if they did not have the financial ability to afford good representation?
3G on iPhone is a software issue not hardware... all Apple has to do is develope/activate the software for 3G functionality. when/whether Apple will do this is anybody's guess
As far as G3 and GPS go, for some reason I believe Steve Jobs stated that the iPhone is capable of these features that is only a software issue and not a hardware one...so, those features will probably eventually make their way to the iPhone, depending on the demand.
I am not sure that any of the online betting CEOs have ever been extradited to the US. As far as I know, all of the online gambling related arrests occured when said CEOs were physically in the US's jurisdiction.
As far as not having done "anything in the US", that is not entirely accurate as, if an online betting site takes bets from individuals located within the US, which as we know, online gambling within the US is against US law, then said CEOs of such online gambling sites have violated US law, even though they [the CEOs] are located in the UK...
The fact remains, the judge did exactly what judges are supposed to do - he weighed up the arguments as they were presented to him
Actually, the perception I get is that the judge and/or his clerk are extremely lazy... as a former federal clerk, I can tell you we never just cursorily issued a ruling based on, for a lack of better terms, crappy briefs (arguments) by the parties. Sure, with this defendant, I would have had to have researched the law in a hell lot more depth and spent more time on it, but at the end of the day, however my judge would eventually rule, at least both parties could rest assured that we actually thoroughly researched the law and completely analyzed all the arguments.
From the sounds of the article, as said before, the judge issued the prelim injunction without even doing the proper research or thoroughly analyzing the Plaintiff's arguments. Of course, this is only a prelim injunction so at the very least, the case does not appear to have been settled on its merits. Plus, the article may be missing some key facts on what actually transpired.
But, the poster is incorrect, because judges are expected to do more than just "weigh the arguments as they are presented to him" because, even if "Ghengis Khan" is not an argument, this does not mean that the Plaintiff's arguments, no matter how cleverly worded and filled with sanctimonious legalspeak it may be, the argument would need to comport with caselaw and be thoroughly analyzed...and from this case, this particular ruling appears to flawed in light of the Ticketmaster ruling...
Judges should "become" experts in case law on whatever issue is before them and not rely only on the parties' briefs, because the parties may have interpreted the case law incorrectly, applying it incorrectly, or consciously omitting caselaw that teaches against the argument they trying to make. That is why the statement that "judges aren't expected to be case law experts" is patently incorrect.
anyway, I hold the philosophy that judges appointed for life and given anywhere between one to four law clerks should, in the name of justice, fairness...and karma:)..should issue rulings only when both arguments have been completely vetted against the most relevant and on-point caselaw, regardless if one party's arguments are completely moronic.
Perhaps you and the parent poster could at least get a better view of the ACLU that all the negative stuff that is regurgitated on FoxNews about the organization. I may not agree with the ACLU all the time, but I am glad there are organizations like the ACLU to protect those freedoms and liberties that FoxNews pundits take for granted such as due process, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc... Not everybody can afford high priced lawyers to protect their basic rights...
Slashdot Mirror
I hated the ending. The unilateral decision to get rid of all technology for everybody was both absurd, short-sighted, and just plain stupid. Why not give people a choice at least? And why the hell would the humans decide to live like cavemen on a strange planet without at least medical technology? There are probably viruses, bacteria, and parasites that would wipe out the colonials. So are we to believe that simple non-life threatening infections now all of a sudden become deadly because of the basic lack of antibiotics?
And what about food? With farming and all what happens during a drought? Hell, what about simple things like books to read, pencils and pens to write with? The whole premise that the colonials all, all off a sudden decide to become essentially Amish after living with technology all their lives is just catastrophically asinine. Fuck, why not at least not destroy the ships in orbit, leave one Raptor on Earth so that the different settlements can be checked in on from time-to-time. Hell, what happened to the sense of wonder and awe of the colonials in that why wouldn't they at least search for other inhabitable planets just in case Earth like gets hit by a comet or asteroid or some other natural disaster befalls Earth and the Colonials need to get the hell outta there.
Ug, what an unbelievably crappy ass implausible ending to an otherwise awesome series... Am I the only one that feels like this???
"Bad Math" ???
When I first glanced at the headline I thought it said "Bad METH" and I was like, WTF!!??, CERN must be driving its scientist to 72 hour work binges, that's odd. Of course, upon closer inspection, I saw it was "math" not "meth" and I thought "damn, this would have been much more interesting from the meth angle".... oh well.
I think we are acting like a dick because the current myopic administration is staffed by dicks... this movie's subject and main character remind me of Bush...I just wish Karma would eventually catch up to Bush and his failed policies.
good point, interestingly enough, this recent (like, today) article agrees with your assertion
interesting though that this article about Uranium mineral rights came out today in the NYT as well.
Actually, Bush did not need to sign the Kyoto treaty because it was already signed by Clinton. The whole Bush/Kyoto line of discussion is bunk in that it was up to the Senate to ratify it and they failed to. Interestingly enough, none of the Democrats in the Senate at the time really made any real effort to get it ratified (I mention Dems, only because they claim to be more "green" than Repubs). Matter of fact, I don't ever recall Gore taking up the "ratify Kyoto" mantel at all after Clinton signed it.
Of course, the debate is that Kyoto would have had devestating effects on the U.S. economy.
anyway, kinda convinent now that Gore is all about the environment as opposed to 8 years ago. Just a thought, not a judgment.
Bankrupt them how? Viacom v. Google is about copyright infringement not patent and does not involve the complicated relationship between IBM, SCO, and a multitude of programmers and contracts...and not too mention linux code (or computer code for this and that), etc.
If anything, a copyright case is far simplier than a patent as there is no question that Viacom owns the copyrights in question as opposed to a patent case where there is claim construction and questions of patent validity, which itself involves loads, and loads of discovery and expensive expert witnesses.
This is not to say that the Viacom case will be very easy, it is just the issues and logistics involved are not the same as the IBM/SCO.
alleged corruption aside, I think the most disturbing part of your post is that the FCC limited bidding to small businesses owned by women or minorities. I don't know about most people here, but I find this to be blatantly discriminatory... even a form of institutional racism. one has to wonder if such set-asides does more harm than whatever good any kinda of federal contract/bidding goals are in regard to actually at least providing opportunities for people regardless of their race or gender... in this instance, why not just limit bidding to small businesses in general?
Its funny you mention obesity as a problem, which I believe it definitely is...but, then I wonder WTF is all the hoopla about 'thin' models and their supposedly influence on, what, making young girls want to be too thin and having eating problems??? We see stories coming out of Spain and Italy where the government wants to regulate the size of models (which deserves another WTF!! ) and then in New York City, there is debate on the same issue... So, which is it? An epedemic of obesity? or and epedemic of thin models affecting girls body weight?? If anything, it seems obesity is a far graver health problem than being too thin...and really, do "thin" boney models really influence girls that much?
Uh, what's a modem? I thought all computers connect to the internets through that thingy called Wi-Fi...
The 7th Circuit's Opinion does not "essentially" open the door for such warrantless searches...read the opinion it discusses and answers your concerns...whether it is satisfactory to you, that is another question.
I don't mean to be snippy, but your post is typical /. crap (yeah, I have been here for years and I should not be surprised)...but, as usual, when it comes to legal opinions, 99% of posters do not bother to read the fucking opinion ("RTFO??")....so here...it is amazing how many /.'s fail to ever read a legal opinion from the numerous cases that are posted here. After reading the opinion, then try to refute its logic and legal basis. Furthermore, Judge Posner is far from an idiot and this is not some capricious opinion either... regardless, there is more to this case that what the initial article lets on... enjoy!
Same Galaxy, Not-in-the-too-distant-future ... Somewhere in the Great Victorian Desert
Uncle Dundee: Oy! have you seen bloody Max this mornin?
Aunt Maxine: Aye, he said that he had some things to do before he started, so the wanker left early.
Uncle Dundee: Did he take those two new bloody droids with him?
Aunt Maxine: Aye matey.
Uncle Dundee: Well, that nong better have those bloody [wind-to-water] units in the South Ridge repaired by m'day, or there'll be bloody hell to pay . . . give me a vegemite wench!
To be a devil's advocate, if an artist's, actor's, author's, etc, work is being copyright infringed on a grandscale, then perhaps that actually indicates said creator is work the millions they are getting paid. If consumers go through the effort to download/obtain a creator's work without paying for it and view/listen/whatever that work, then that at least means the work holds some value and enjoyment for the consumer, else, why really waste time and effort on something that has no appeal?
Perhaps, the real question to ask is what is the "sweet spot" of price (assuming that there is adequate distribution methods) that yields the most revenue for a piece of work and that actually compels as many of those who would pirate a work to actually pay for? For instance, if 1,000,000 people will splurge say 14 bucks on Justin Timberlakes album when it first came out, how many more people would have bought it for $7? Surely, the same million that bought it at $14 would have bought it at $7, but would, say, 1.5 million more have bought it if it was half-price, including those folks that would have just downloaded the album off of bittorrent? The same goes for DVDs and even movies at the theater, i.e. paying almost $10 to go the theater does seem absurd for many of the movies out there, but if pricing were flexible, for instance, $5 for the latest Saw VII, then more people might be inclined to take a chance and go to the theater...
anyway, my whole point is if something is worth taking the trouble to obtain off of the internet for free, then at some price point, most will probably buy it... even so, if a creator's work is pirated frequently, then that at least validates somewhat that the creator is getting paid their worth.
I have a er..."friend" who is a member of the Academy and gets to vote on the Oscars. One really cool thing about going to her house is that she gets tons of movies from various studios that are vying for nominations for every category... why cool? because she has movies that are still in the theaters, or ones that we never get to see, such as foreign released films, shorts, documentaries, and stuff that is not yet on DVD (yes, usually there is a weekend marathon of movies)
Anyway, the Academy used to send them on regular DVD but one of the restrictions was that members are forbidden from sharing the movies, i.e., letting others borrow them, else they lose their membership and probably get tossed in a cell with a drunk Mel Gibson and Gary Busey... now, they have the movies on a special DVD that only works on special players that are distributed to most members (I think some members still get regular DVDs, although I cannot vouch for this)...
I wonder if Fox just gives out regular DVDs to special people to view? I know a guy I worked for one time used to the president years ago of whatever group gives out the Emmys, but as a member of the..."Emmy group"?...he still gets tons of DVDs of various episodes of all the TV shows on broadcast and cable. As far as I know, they were regular DVDs. (I used to sneak a few out at work and watch them on my computer...during lunch and breaks of course).
It seems if Fox or other networks thought that such episodes were so important,they would not allow unresticted DVDs out into the wild. Hell, it could have been one of Fox's VP's kids that got a hold of 24's premiere and unleashed that baby into the tubes of the interwebs...
I agree...My karma got dinged in a recent iPhone discussion after I pointed out that 3G is a software issue and not a hardware one. My only mistake was not putting up a supporting link. Instead, I was modded down, but noone posted any cites to the contrary... yes, I am a Karma Whore.
As far as "right-wing" media compaines... try Clear Channel Communications and Sinclair broadcasting for starters. They control a lot of local broadcasting (radio and television)...
I would say your analogy is a poor one, only because the crime of dealing drugs is treated differently than child porn possession... as far as I know, the crime of dealing is not a strict liability offense, meaning, the cops have to actually prove a number of elements of the crime, i.e. mens rea, that the person who is charged with dealing the drugs actually dealt them and lots of other pieces of evidence that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the absent homeowner was actually dealing drugs...
Now compare this to possession of child porn, putting aside the fact that the whole charge of child porn unnecessarily inflames a jury's passions and clouds their judgment, I believe possession of child porn is a strict liability offense, meaning, the state does not have to prove mens rea (guilty state of mind)...or intent to possess said child porn...all the state has to do is prove that child porn came from your computer (or was on it) and since you own the computer, you are guilty...in other words, the standard of proof is something far less than reasonable doubt (although, prosecutors don't really admit this). The proscecutor's case is far easier for possession of child porn. He only has to show that someone uploaded it onto Yahoo (or downloaded it), get the IP address, trace it to your computer, then Viola! you are guilty unless you can prove, which is essentially "beyond a reasonble doubt" on your part that someone else did it. The problem being, if you are innocent, do you want to risk going in front of a jury to prove your innocence when the penalty for failure is 40 years or longer? Probably not, that is why prosecutors use the rather questionably constitutional long prison sentences for various child porn laws as bludgeons...
Probably the biggest difference between all other crimes and possession of child porn is that with other crimes, you are innocent until proven guilty...while legislators have apparently turned that essential brick of our Constitution upsidedown when it comes to child porn possession in that you are guilty unless you prove yourself to be innocent.
What has occurred is that the media and politicos have sold a "pedophile" epidemic to the general populace where one really does not exists...crimes do happen, that much is true...but with every horrible crime involving a pedophile that rapes and murders, the media has latched on turning such events as harbingers of an invasion of pedophiles which resulted in poorly thought out laws created from hysteria without any reasonable debate (see Megan's law, Jessica's law, et al). For example, there have been numbers of people being forced to register as sex offenders for acts that have nothing to do with pedophile crimes... or just look at the Conn case with its "risk of injury to a minor" charge...what the fuck does that really mean? Plus, i think the sex registry is a copout in that if these people are still dangerous, then why the hell let them out? Registering as a sex offender is not going to stop them from molesting a child.
Anyway, just my two cents. There will be no rational pedophile/child porn laws until somebody who is power, i.e., imagine if this kid was John McCain's? do you think the prosecutor would have proceeded differently? hell ya... the only reason Matt was able to avoid going to trial is because he parents were fortunate enough to be able to afford a very good attorney. Imagine if they did not have the financial ability to afford good representation?
I think I detect a hint of sarcasm...my oversight for not including a link... Here is what I read... please don't diss my karma for my own impatience
Well, I should have included a link ... so, please, instead of dissing my karma, please provide a link to the contrary. Here is what I read
3G on iPhone is a software issue not hardware... all Apple has to do is develope/activate the software for 3G functionality. when/whether Apple will do this is anybody's guess
As far as G3 and GPS go, for some reason I believe Steve Jobs stated that the iPhone is capable of these features that is only a software issue and not a hardware one...so, those features will probably eventually make their way to the iPhone, depending on the demand.
I am not sure that any of the online betting CEOs have ever been extradited to the US. As far as I know, all of the online gambling related arrests occured when said CEOs were physically in the US's jurisdiction.
As far as not having done "anything in the US", that is not entirely accurate as, if an online betting site takes bets from individuals located within the US, which as we know, online gambling within the US is against US law, then said CEOs of such online gambling sites have violated US law, even though they [the CEOs] are located in the UK...
The fact remains, the judge did exactly what judges are supposed to do - he weighed up the arguments as they were presented to him
Actually, the perception I get is that the judge and/or his clerk are extremely lazy... as a former federal clerk, I can tell you we never just cursorily issued a ruling based on, for a lack of better terms, crappy briefs (arguments) by the parties. Sure, with this defendant, I would have had to have researched the law in a hell lot more depth and spent more time on it, but at the end of the day, however my judge would eventually rule, at least both parties could rest assured that we actually thoroughly researched the law and completely analyzed all the arguments.
From the sounds of the article, as said before, the judge issued the prelim injunction without even doing the proper research or thoroughly analyzing the Plaintiff's arguments. Of course, this is only a prelim injunction so at the very least, the case does not appear to have been settled on its merits. Plus, the article may be missing some key facts on what actually transpired.
But, the poster is incorrect, because judges are expected to do more than just "weigh the arguments as they are presented to him" because, even if "Ghengis Khan" is not an argument, this does not mean that the Plaintiff's arguments, no matter how cleverly worded and filled with sanctimonious legalspeak it may be, the argument would need to comport with caselaw and be thoroughly analyzed...and from this case, this particular ruling appears to flawed in light of the Ticketmaster ruling...
Judges should "become" experts in case law on whatever issue is before them and not rely only on the parties' briefs, because the parties may have interpreted the case law incorrectly, applying it incorrectly, or consciously omitting caselaw that teaches against the argument they trying to make. That is why the statement that "judges aren't expected to be case law experts" is patently incorrect.
anyway, I hold the philosophy that judges appointed for life and given anywhere between one to four law clerks should, in the name of justice, fairness...and karma:)..should issue rulings only when both arguments have been completely vetted against the most relevant and on-point caselaw, regardless if one party's arguments are completely moronic.
Perhaps you and the parent poster could at least get a better view of the ACLU that all the negative stuff that is regurgitated on FoxNews about the organization. I may not agree with the ACLU all the time, but I am glad there are organizations like the ACLU to protect those freedoms and liberties that FoxNews pundits take for granted such as due process, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc... Not everybody can afford high priced lawyers to protect their basic rights...