Thank you for clarifying. I suspected that some sort of brief with reasons would have to be filed by the RIAA. My post was misleading in implying that this notice would be the only filing by the RIAA for this appeal. I wouldn't expect that the RIAA's counsel to appear (or, nowadays, be able to appear) before the circuit Court without filing written submissions.
=== UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) Civ. Act. No. 03-cv-11661-NG ) (LEAD DOCKET NUMBER) v. ) ) NOOR ALAUJAN, ) Defendant. ) ) ) SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT ) et al., Plaintiffs, ) Civ. Act. No 07-cv-11446-NG ) (ORIGINAL DOCKET NUMBER) v. ) ) JOEL TENENBAUM, ) ) Defendants. ) ) NOTICE OF APPEAL Plaintiffs, Sony BMG Music Entertainment; Warner Brothers Records, Inc.; Atlantic Recording Corporation; Arista Records, LLC; and UMG Recordings, Inc., hereby give notice of their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the Order dated January 14, 2009, authorizing the broadcasting of certain proceedings in this case over the internet. ===
This text they've submitted isn't especially informative. It contains no grounds for the appeal, no citations of rules or statutes, and no factual background. I would charactise this want of information in a pleading to a circuit Court as "uncommon".
To answer the questions as to "can they appeal an Order", one must reach into the bowels of civil procedure for Massachusetts, and the statutes governing the relationship between the Mass. court of the Order and the Circuit Court. I don't know these laws, but the general principle is that one may appeal (i.e. a request for review of, with a view to altering, the decision of a lower Court) only determinitive decisions-- i.e. those that end the case. The reason being that interlocutory (i.e. pre-emptive) appeals lead to all sorts of procedural nonsense, most heinously gross delay and ultimately undermining the exclusivity of the Court of first instance (i.e. where the proceeding was started) to make determinations in an expedient, coherent and effective manner. It also has a psychological and financial effect on non-institutional parties (i.e. humans), who are subject to litigation fatigue and often have limited legal resources that are, I would argue, most effectively used in a single concentrated hearing of the issues.
The rare exceptions to the rule against interlocutory appeals would tend to be based on some sort of gross unfairness. For example, you may be able to appeal an Order that is effectively determinative, even if it is not procedurally determinative (i.e. where time is of the essence, and the lower-Court's Order will render moot any ultimate decision). For example, if a Judge orders that sugar remain on a ship, but leaving the meat on the ship will cause it to spoil, an appeal Court may issue an Order to have the sugar stored someplace that will preserve it. The other case that comes to mind is the patent unfairness of bias, such as a biased Judge making non-determinative decisions that nevertheless effect prejudice.
This latter point (patent unfairness--not bias) would have application and merit, if the RIAA were able to show that a public viewing of this proceeding would give rise to prejudice or, alternatively, that it would cause incidental harm. I doubt the RIAA has the legal wits to bring up that argument, and even if they did it'd be difficult to reach the standard for showing (a) the Judge's Order was improper and (b) the harm to the RIAA is outweighted by the benefit to the public. An appeal Court does not generally have plenary jurisdiction, but only has a certain scope to review and change an Order of the Court of first instance. Changing a Judge's Order requires overcoming the presumption that the Judge was incorrect, with respect to either in a factual or legal conclusion. Again, without seeing the reasons of the RIAA, we can only speculate as to the basis for their appeal. They'd almost certainly need a gag order already in effect to get the circuit Court to reverse the Judge's Order to broadcast the proceeding.
I suspect, based on what I've read here, that the RIAA is using this "appeal" as a fishing trip to delay the proceedings, and to punish the defendant with legal costs
As the eminent scientist Geoffery Ballard (inventor of the hydrogen fuel cell) once said to an audience I was in attendance at, if I may paraphrase: batteries are different from bombs only in the amount of time it takes to release their energy.
Storing lots of energy is only as useful as it is safe.
It's worth noting that the performance of the cites you list are probably better examples of memcached performance (which I believe is used by all the sites you give, though I stand to be corrected) than MySQL per se, though certainly the database is an important part of the equation for a massive public online deployment.
Generally, though with some exceptions, a judge decides the law of a case, and a jury will decide the facts. If there is no jury, a judge decides law and facts. The facts are almost always decided at what's called the "court of first instance", and the facts are based upon submissions to the court through affidavits, documentary evidence, and sworn witness testimony ("evidence"). It is the duty of the trier of fact to decide, where conflicting stories exist, the credibility of the evidence. Usually in civil trials a fact is "found" where the trier of fact decides that on a balance of probabilities (i.e. chances greater than 50%) a fact is true.
An appellate court, which one appeals to after a decision at the court of first instance, generally modifies the decisions of the court of first instance in only specific circumstances. Those circumstances typically include a mistake in the interpretation or application of the law, or the creation of new law based upon fundamental principles of justice.
Generally, however, the appellate court is never a trier of fact (as a judge or jury is at the court of first instance). An appellate court is not privy to the assessment of credibility, direct or cross examination of witnesses, etc., it generally cannot call witnesses, parties to the proceeding cannot introduce new evidence (unless it is crucial, and even then in only limited circumstances), etc. As a general rule, appellate courts determine law, but not fact. The facts were already decided at the court of first instance. For that reason, the standard for changing the facts of the court of first instance by an appellate court is exceptionally high, usually with a test being described as something like the facts found in the court of first instance were "patently unreasonable", which is to say politely "absurd".
Generally the policy behind the exclusivity of fact-finding being by a court of first instance is that parties get one shot at the evidence, which is to encourage full disclosure and expedition of the entire court process. It also specializes the Judges of the courts, and creates "higher courts" that may focus their attention on logical and policy questions. With exceptions, it is often, but not universally, thought that higher courts will attract greater academic aptitude.
That being said, if there is either a patently absurd finding at the court of first instance, or alternatively there is a procedural unfairness, sometimes an appellate court will send the proceeding back to a court of first instance for a new trial.
I think it would be rather odd for SCO to get another crack at the facts. It is rather likely that, given adequate funding, they could keep at this for quite some time.
A constructive trust is a trust (a legal duty to a beneficiary by the person in possession of something) that has been created by a court. There are many types of trust, but they all essentially mean the same: There is something (in trust) that you never had the authority over in the first place because it belonged to someone else (the beneficiary).
As an example, in many places a constructive trust in bankruptcy exists over employee wages such that employees have a superpriority over other creditors (i.e. employees get all their money before creditors get any), but further a the thing held in trust (wages) that was previously given away (to pay creditors) can actually be taken back from subsequent possessors ("restitution"). In other words, anyone given anything by an insolvent (that state of not being able to pay bills that typically precedes a declaration of bankruptcy) company may have to give it up so that employees can get their wages held in trust. Employment law varies wildly- many jurisdictions don't enact a trust- but it's a decent example, easy to relate to.
In the SCO case the trust is over funds, meaning the court has said (by declaring the construction of a trust) that the beneficiary (Novell) of the trust can "follow the money" from SCO to whomever may now hold it because SCO never had a right to the funds in the first place. That may include wages to directors, bank transfers, rent, etc. Further, if SCO is unable to pay the money, and it cannot be traced, anyone that encouraged SCO to spend money that SCO didn't have a right to may have committed a wrong (intentionally, having been complicit or willfully blind) related to the breach of trust.
These are just common law principles for the edification of anyone interested, and the law may very well be quite different in Utah (or most anywhere else). But it's also an oculus into why a constructive may be relevant- and it's not well explained in the article.
after a group of companies that resell access to Bell's network complained their customers were also being negatively affected
That's a misleading statement. Bell resells access to its DSLAM- the "last mile" of copper to users. Generally Bell does not provide a backbone internet connection to independent ISPs. Bell is, in essence, altering the traffic of users and ISPs because Bell is the middle-man, and they want to reduce the differentiation between their internet service (Sympatico) and competitors. As I understand it, Bell has not produced any evidence as to what it costs to have traffic crossing their DSLAM.
An example of how this works (at least how I understand it) is via the company Teksavvy. Teksavvy buys bandwidth from ISP backbones, and resells it to consumers. In order to get a DSL line to the consumer, Teksavvy has to go through Bell because Bell has a de facto monopoly on the installation and maintenance of copper lines. Bell connects the copper line at the user's residence to a Bell DSLAM, which in turn is a network switch that connects to Teksavvy's network (and then on to the backbone). Bell manipulates the traffic crossing their DSLAM from consumers to Teksavvy.
Lawyers, however, enable litigation. In fact, for some lawyers, that *is* their business. You can talk in abstractions all you like, but the main difference between mathematicians and lawyers is that the mathematician's love for bizarre, pedantic arguments stays in the ivory towers. Lawyers do the same thing having massively damaging affects on the real world. Sure, some douche hired a lawyer to push some ludicrous case, and he's a douche. No argument there, but when a lawyer who's good enough at his trade argues a bullshit case convincingly that can change the way the law is applied to everyone in incredibly destructive ways. Take the mockery that's been made of the interstate commerce clause alone. Bad lawyers doing bad things that has cost the country incalculable amounts of money, integrity and damn near anything else you'd care to mention.
I am a lawyer (a litigator, specifically) and a mathematician, so I question your dichotomy between the two. To over-generalize the contributions of one profession or the other on society is specious. To rebut your bald statement about the destructive nature of lawyers, it's worth noting that lawyers are responsible for: creating civil liberties such as the right for women and the right for 'colored' people to vote and attend school with white people; writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; defending Galileo Galilei when he published a "truth" (mathematics) when the church persecuted him for challenging their proprietary access to absolute "truth". As a generalization, mathematicians contributed to the discovery of the atomic bomb, and every other weapon ever created. More accurately, both have positive and negative effects on society (though economists might argue that because more lawyers are employed than mathematicians and generally better remunerated, they by definition have a more positive effect on society; the counter-argument is that they, like big corporations, rent-seek, vis-a-vis Ann Kruger's thesis)
Further, litigation is convincing a state (which has a monopoly on legal force) that they should enact legal force in your favour. Lawyers don't enable litigation as a form of enforceable dispute resolution, the rule of law does (i.e. the grant of state monopoly over legal force). What are the alternatives? Vigilantism? As well, the vast, vast, vast majority of lawyers don't practice any form of litigation. Only barristers (i.e. counselors-at-law) litigate; around 90% o lawyers practice as solicitors (attorneys-at-law) and never see the inside of a courtroom.
Finally, some attribute the commerce clause (and WTO/GATT-like reductions in interstate discriminatory trade practices) with the creation of more wealth in the United States than any other law in the US federation. I believe Thatcher argued that it was civil liberties. I imagine it was a combination of those two.
But your calculation is incomplete. Why aren't the ridiculous cases refused? Because while *you* might possess ethics, there are plenty of people who don't. Some of those people are lawyers. So even if the rest of the people were sane and decent, the sleazebag lawyers would be chasing those ambulances and working to convince the weak willed and stupid that they're owed. That's how they make a living, after all.
Points relevant: 1. The vast, vast majority of lawyers are ethical and have ethical clients, and to deny these people legal representation is to deny them access to justice; 2. It is unethical to deny legal representation to someone just because you do not agree with their position - it is the duty of legal counsel to advise them why you believe their position is wrong; 3. Defending a position is not the same as agreeing with it- unpopular positions (e.g. insurance companies defending against injured people making claims) have important functions (i.e. keeping insurance rates low, preventing fraud ---- fraud on insurance companies is a much, much, much bigger problem than fraud by insurance com
Mind control and induced memory loss was part of a (now famous) CIA project apparently involving dozens of universities, called Project MK-ULTRA. See also William Sargant and Donald Cameron.
I can see how electronics can interfere with precision radio instrument landing systems (ILS). However... could someone explain how a passenger clicking a mouse could -in any way- otherwise affect the flight of an airplane?
As someone pointed out, due to assortative mating that doesn't actually happen in practice.
I recently read an article, Religion, Disease and Evolution in the Economist, that seems to indicate that diseased populations are also religious ones. I recall the thesis being that religion is caused by disease, as a type of social xenophobia that's evolved to protect against the spread of disease.
I conjecture that assortative mixing (and homophily) is compounded by the ignorant who perceive difference (skin color and intelligence) as a disease. It's a worthwhile observation that an unbelievable 95% of churches in the USA are racially segregated.
3. You're not allowed to use phones on airplanes because of paranoid ignoramuses and the insightful people who realize how bad it could get when people in a flying bomb know what's going on (and how annoying cell phones are).
Airplane Instrument Landing Systems use radio frequencies that I understand mobile phones interfere with. This is particularly a problem when the plane is far from a cell-phone tower (as mobile phones will increase their signal strength to reach distant towers).
This has become less of a problem as GPS has augmented existing ILS localizers. However, I don't think GPS replaces the glidescope, and it is less reliable in inclement weather than localizers.
Caveat: Everything I know about what I just said comes from trying to land 767's in X-Plane.
Also, AFAIK, all unlimited plans are DSL from Bell resellers, and Bell it throttling their connections and will add a 60GB/month limit soon.
Most independent ISPs subscribe to backbones such as UUNet, PSINet or AT&T. I doubt any ISP would ever consider using Bell or Rogers for backbone. That'd be like going to McDonalds and asking for a supply of raw ground beef.
What Bell *does* have a monopoly on is the copper lines that form the "last mile" of DSL, called the DSLAM. However, that has nothing to do with bandwidth to the internet. There is great controversy as to whether this monopoly choke-point can given Bell the right to limit bandwidth and/or throttle it, even though the bandwidth effectively costs them nothing.
Please. My quick search shows that the *vast* majority of Canadian ISPs have unlimited bandwidth. Most that do have bandwidth caps set it at a reasonably generous 200GB. See: http://www.canadianisp.ca/cgi-bin/ispsearch.cgi
I have Teksavvy.com, which is $40/month (in Ontario, at least) for unlimited bandwidth.
It's only if you have the misfortune of subscribing to the services of a monopoly like Rogers or Bell that you'd be scraping the bottom of the ISP barrel. These companies profit by marketing to the ignorant masses, and peddling the lowest common denominator. The quality of their service is irrelevant, so long as it meets the basic expectations of a statistically significant segment of the masses.
Contrast this with the plethora of competitive ISPs in Canada who must compete on quality of service.
That's not to say that your area has much choice in ISP. However, if it's anywhere halfway urban, there ought to be at least one non-monopoly choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for clarifying. I suspected that some sort of brief with reasons would have to be filed by the RIAA. My post was misleading in implying that this notice would be the only filing by the RIAA for this appeal. I wouldn't expect that the RIAA's counsel to appear (or, nowadays, be able to appear) before the circuit Court without filing written submissions.
The text of the appeal is:
===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al., )
Plaintiffs, ) Civ. Act. No. 03-cv-11661-NG
) (LEAD DOCKET NUMBER)
v. )
)
NOOR ALAUJAN, )
Defendant. )
)
)
SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT )
et al., Plaintiffs, ) Civ. Act. No 07-cv-11446-NG
) (ORIGINAL DOCKET NUMBER)
v. )
)
JOEL TENENBAUM, )
)
Defendants. )
)
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Plaintiffs, Sony BMG Music Entertainment; Warner Brothers Records, Inc.; Atlantic
Recording Corporation; Arista Records, LLC; and UMG Recordings, Inc., hereby give notice of
their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the Order dated
January 14, 2009, authorizing the broadcasting of certain proceedings in this case over the
internet.
===
This text they've submitted isn't especially informative. It contains no grounds for the appeal, no citations of rules or statutes, and no factual background. I would charactise this want of information in a pleading to a circuit Court as "uncommon".
To answer the questions as to "can they appeal an Order", one must reach into the bowels of civil procedure for Massachusetts, and the statutes governing the relationship between the Mass. court of the Order and the Circuit Court. I don't know these laws, but the general principle is that one may appeal (i.e. a request for review of, with a view to altering, the decision of a lower Court) only determinitive decisions-- i.e. those that end the case. The reason being that interlocutory (i.e. pre-emptive) appeals lead to all sorts of procedural nonsense, most heinously gross delay and ultimately undermining the exclusivity of the Court of first instance (i.e. where the proceeding was started) to make determinations in an expedient, coherent and effective manner. It also has a psychological and financial effect on non-institutional parties (i.e. humans), who are subject to litigation fatigue and often have limited legal resources that are, I would argue, most effectively used in a single concentrated hearing of the issues.
The rare exceptions to the rule against interlocutory appeals would tend to be based on some sort of gross unfairness. For example, you may be able to appeal an Order that is effectively determinative, even if it is not procedurally determinative (i.e. where time is of the essence, and the lower-Court's Order will render moot any ultimate decision). For example, if a Judge orders that sugar remain on a ship, but leaving the meat on the ship will cause it to spoil, an appeal Court may issue an Order to have the sugar stored someplace that will preserve it. The other case that comes to mind is the patent unfairness of bias, such as a biased Judge making non-determinative decisions that nevertheless effect prejudice.
This latter point (patent unfairness--not bias) would have application and merit, if the RIAA were able to show that a public viewing of this proceeding would give rise to prejudice or, alternatively, that it would cause incidental harm. I doubt the RIAA has the legal wits to bring up that argument, and even if they did it'd be difficult to reach the standard for showing (a) the Judge's Order was improper and (b) the harm to the RIAA is outweighted by the benefit to the public. An appeal Court does not generally have plenary jurisdiction, but only has a certain scope to review and change an Order of the Court of first instance. Changing a Judge's Order requires overcoming the presumption that the Judge was incorrect, with respect to either in a factual or legal conclusion. Again, without seeing the reasons of the RIAA, we can only speculate as to the basis for their appeal. They'd almost certainly need a gag order already in effect to get the circuit Court to reverse the Judge's Order to broadcast the proceeding.
I suspect, based on what I've read here, that the RIAA is using this "appeal" as a fishing trip to delay the proceedings, and to punish the defendant with legal costs
I note that SCO is not on that list ... it's like a cockroach, it'll survive nuclear holocaust.
What does that mean?
As the eminent scientist Geoffery Ballard (inventor of the hydrogen fuel cell) once said to an audience I was in attendance at, if I may paraphrase: batteries are different from bombs only in the amount of time it takes to release their energy.
Storing lots of energy is only as useful as it is safe.
isn't suicide by definition a voluntary act?
Not if you have multiple personalities.
Teksavvy and others like them are resellers of Bell's DSL services.
Teksavvy only uses Bell for access to a DSLAM. They have their own backbone internet connection, namely Peer1 and/or Cogent, I believe.
... offers Dry-Loop DSL for $30 per month, plus the cost of the copper line at around $9.00 a month.
People don't vote their conscience, they vote their prejudices.
That is an astute observation.
I thought that would have been clear by now.
I thought your first paragraph made clear why it isn't. ;)
It's worth noting that the performance of the cites you list are probably better examples of memcached performance (which I believe is used by all the sites you give, though I stand to be corrected) than MySQL per se, though certainly the database is an important part of the equation for a massive public online deployment.
Those who forget history will have to try to re-invent it. Badly.
I believe that is an insightful combination of two quotes:
- Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. (alt. George Santayana: "Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.")
- "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." Henry Spencer
Generally, though with some exceptions, a judge decides the law of a case, and a jury will decide the facts. If there is no jury, a judge decides law and facts. The facts are almost always decided at what's called the "court of first instance", and the facts are based upon submissions to the court through affidavits, documentary evidence, and sworn witness testimony ("evidence"). It is the duty of the trier of fact to decide, where conflicting stories exist, the credibility of the evidence. Usually in civil trials a fact is "found" where the trier of fact decides that on a balance of probabilities (i.e. chances greater than 50%) a fact is true.
An appellate court, which one appeals to after a decision at the court of first instance, generally modifies the decisions of the court of first instance in only specific circumstances. Those circumstances typically include a mistake in the interpretation or application of the law, or the creation of new law based upon fundamental principles of justice.
Generally, however, the appellate court is never a trier of fact (as a judge or jury is at the court of first instance). An appellate court is not privy to the assessment of credibility, direct or cross examination of witnesses, etc., it generally cannot call witnesses, parties to the proceeding cannot introduce new evidence (unless it is crucial, and even then in only limited circumstances), etc. As a general rule, appellate courts determine law, but not fact. The facts were already decided at the court of first instance. For that reason, the standard for changing the facts of the court of first instance by an appellate court is exceptionally high, usually with a test being described as something like the facts found in the court of first instance were "patently unreasonable", which is to say politely "absurd".
Generally the policy behind the exclusivity of fact-finding being by a court of first instance is that parties get one shot at the evidence, which is to encourage full disclosure and expedition of the entire court process. It also specializes the Judges of the courts, and creates "higher courts" that may focus their attention on logical and policy questions. With exceptions, it is often, but not universally, thought that higher courts will attract greater academic aptitude.
That being said, if there is either a patently absurd finding at the court of first instance, or alternatively there is a procedural unfairness, sometimes an appellate court will send the proceeding back to a court of first instance for a new trial.
I think it would be rather odd for SCO to get another crack at the facts. It is rather likely that, given adequate funding, they could keep at this for quite some time.
A constructive trust is a trust (a legal duty to a beneficiary by the person in possession of something) that has been created by a court. There are many types of trust, but they all essentially mean the same: There is something (in trust) that you never had the authority over in the first place because it belonged to someone else (the beneficiary).
As an example, in many places a constructive trust in bankruptcy exists over employee wages such that employees have a superpriority over other creditors (i.e. employees get all their money before creditors get any), but further a the thing held in trust (wages) that was previously given away (to pay creditors) can actually be taken back from subsequent possessors ("restitution"). In other words, anyone given anything by an insolvent (that state of not being able to pay bills that typically precedes a declaration of bankruptcy) company may have to give it up so that employees can get their wages held in trust. Employment law varies wildly- many jurisdictions don't enact a trust- but it's a decent example, easy to relate to.
In the SCO case the trust is over funds, meaning the court has said (by declaring the construction of a trust) that the beneficiary (Novell) of the trust can "follow the money" from SCO to whomever may now hold it because SCO never had a right to the funds in the first place. That may include wages to directors, bank transfers, rent, etc. Further, if SCO is unable to pay the money, and it cannot be traced, anyone that encouraged SCO to spend money that SCO didn't have a right to may have committed a wrong (intentionally, having been complicit or willfully blind) related to the breach of trust.
These are just common law principles for the edification of anyone interested, and the law may very well be quite different in Utah (or most anywhere else). But it's also an oculus into why a constructive may be relevant- and it's not well explained in the article.
after a group of companies that resell access to Bell's network complained their customers were also being negatively affected
That's a misleading statement. Bell resells access to its DSLAM- the "last mile" of copper to users. Generally Bell does not provide a backbone internet connection to independent ISPs. Bell is, in essence, altering the traffic of users and ISPs because Bell is the middle-man, and they want to reduce the differentiation between their internet service (Sympatico) and competitors. As I understand it, Bell has not produced any evidence as to what it costs to have traffic crossing their DSLAM.
An example of how this works (at least how I understand it) is via the company Teksavvy. Teksavvy buys bandwidth from ISP backbones, and resells it to consumers. In order to get a DSL line to the consumer, Teksavvy has to go through Bell because Bell has a de facto monopoly on the installation and maintenance of copper lines. Bell connects the copper line at the user's residence to a Bell DSLAM, which in turn is a network switch that connects to Teksavvy's network (and then on to the backbone). Bell manipulates the traffic crossing their DSLAM from consumers to Teksavvy.
Lawyers, however, enable litigation. In fact, for some lawyers, that *is* their business. You can talk in abstractions all you like, but the main difference between mathematicians and lawyers is that the mathematician's love for bizarre, pedantic arguments stays in the ivory towers. Lawyers do the same thing having massively damaging affects on the real world. Sure, some douche hired a lawyer to push some ludicrous case, and he's a douche. No argument there, but when a lawyer who's good enough at his trade argues a bullshit case convincingly that can change the way the law is applied to everyone in incredibly destructive ways. Take the mockery that's been made of the interstate commerce clause alone. Bad lawyers doing bad things that has cost the country incalculable amounts of money, integrity and damn near anything else you'd care to mention.
I am a lawyer (a litigator, specifically) and a mathematician, so I question your dichotomy between the two. To over-generalize the contributions of one profession or the other on society is specious. To rebut your bald statement about the destructive nature of lawyers, it's worth noting that lawyers are responsible for: creating civil liberties such as the right for women and the right for 'colored' people to vote and attend school with white people; writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; defending Galileo Galilei when he published a "truth" (mathematics) when the church persecuted him for challenging their proprietary access to absolute "truth". As a generalization, mathematicians contributed to the discovery of the atomic bomb, and every other weapon ever created. More accurately, both have positive and negative effects on society (though economists might argue that because more lawyers are employed than mathematicians and generally better remunerated, they by definition have a more positive effect on society; the counter-argument is that they, like big corporations, rent-seek, vis-a-vis Ann Kruger's thesis)
Further, litigation is convincing a state (which has a monopoly on legal force) that they should enact legal force in your favour. Lawyers don't enable litigation as a form of enforceable dispute resolution, the rule of law does (i.e. the grant of state monopoly over legal force). What are the alternatives? Vigilantism? As well, the vast, vast, vast majority of lawyers don't practice any form of litigation. Only barristers (i.e. counselors-at-law) litigate; around 90% o lawyers practice as solicitors (attorneys-at-law) and never see the inside of a courtroom.
Finally, some attribute the commerce clause (and WTO/GATT-like reductions in interstate discriminatory trade practices) with the creation of more wealth in the United States than any other law in the US federation. I believe Thatcher argued that it was civil liberties. I imagine it was a combination of those two.
But your calculation is incomplete. Why aren't the ridiculous cases refused? Because while *you* might possess ethics, there are plenty of people who don't. Some of those people are lawyers. So even if the rest of the people were sane and decent, the sleazebag lawyers would be chasing those ambulances and working to convince the weak willed and stupid that they're owed. That's how they make a living, after all.
Points relevant:
1. The vast, vast majority of lawyers are ethical and have ethical clients, and to deny these people legal representation is to deny them access to justice;
2. It is unethical to deny legal representation to someone just because you do not agree with their position - it is the duty of legal counsel to advise them why you believe their position is wrong;
3. Defending a position is not the same as agreeing with it- unpopular positions (e.g. insurance companies defending against injured people making claims) have important functions (i.e. keeping insurance rates low, preventing fraud ---- fraud on insurance companies is a much, much, much bigger problem than fraud by insurance com
... get an axe! .. oh wait .. that was a trick.
Mind control and induced memory loss was part of a (now famous) CIA project apparently involving dozens of universities, called Project MK-ULTRA. See also William Sargant and Donald Cameron.
I can see how electronics can interfere with precision radio instrument landing systems (ILS). However ... could someone explain how a passenger clicking a mouse could -in any way- otherwise affect the flight of an airplane?
Thanks.
As someone pointed out, due to assortative mating that doesn't actually happen in practice.
I recently read an article, Religion, Disease and Evolution in the Economist, that seems to indicate that diseased populations are also religious ones. I recall the thesis being that religion is caused by disease, as a type of social xenophobia that's evolved to protect against the spread of disease.
I conjecture that assortative mixing (and homophily) is compounded by the ignorant who perceive difference (skin color and intelligence) as a disease. It's a worthwhile observation that an unbelievable 95% of churches in the USA are racially segregated.
3. You're not allowed to use phones on airplanes because of paranoid ignoramuses and the insightful people who realize how bad it could get when people in a flying bomb know what's going on (and how annoying cell phones are).
Airplane Instrument Landing Systems use radio frequencies that I understand mobile phones interfere with. This is particularly a problem when the plane is far from a cell-phone tower (as mobile phones will increase their signal strength to reach distant towers).
This has become less of a problem as GPS has augmented existing ILS localizers. However, I don't think GPS replaces the glidescope, and it is less reliable in inclement weather than localizers.
Caveat: Everything I know about what I just said comes from trying to land 767's in X-Plane.
Does OpenID help solve this (spamming) problem?
Also, AFAIK, all unlimited plans are DSL from Bell resellers, and Bell it throttling their connections and will add a 60GB/month limit soon.
Most independent ISPs subscribe to backbones such as UUNet, PSINet or AT&T. I doubt any ISP would ever consider using Bell or Rogers for backbone. That'd be like going to McDonalds and asking for a supply of raw ground beef.
What Bell *does* have a monopoly on is the copper lines that form the "last mile" of DSL, called the DSLAM. However, that has nothing to do with bandwidth to the internet. There is great controversy as to whether this monopoly choke-point can given Bell the right to limit bandwidth and/or throttle it, even though the bandwidth effectively costs them nothing.
Please. My quick search shows that the *vast* majority of Canadian ISPs have unlimited bandwidth. Most that do have bandwidth caps set it at a reasonably generous 200GB.
See: http://www.canadianisp.ca/cgi-bin/ispsearch.cgi
I have Teksavvy.com, which is $40/month (in Ontario, at least) for unlimited bandwidth.
It's only if you have the misfortune of subscribing to the services of a monopoly like Rogers or Bell that you'd be scraping the bottom of the ISP barrel. These companies profit by marketing to the ignorant masses, and peddling the lowest common denominator. The quality of their service is irrelevant, so long as it meets the basic expectations of a statistically significant segment of the masses.
Contrast this with the plethora of competitive ISPs in Canada who must compete on quality of service.
That's not to say that your area has much choice in ISP. However, if it's anywhere halfway urban, there ought to be at least one non-monopoly choice.
... http://stackoverflow.com/
... it's a Bowl of Petunias, or a sperm whale (again).