I don't see why this would be any worse than the Federal Junk Fax Law that prevents random people from taking over your fax machine. In fact, Hooters was sued under this statute and ordered to pay a heck of a lot of money - enough that they won't be sending any more unsolicited faxes.
* Ingredients
+ One bag caramel cubes
+ Waffle mix
+ One bottle Liquid Smoke
+ One stick butter
* Directions
+ Empty bag of caramels onto waffle iron.
+ Add generous portion of waffle batter.
+ Add one bottle of Liquid Smoke.
+ Cook until burnt.
+ Wrap waffle around a stick of butter.
+ Serve on a toothpick.
Because for each random number they'd have to reserve the number for EVERY SINGLE AREA CODE. It's a lot easier to just have 555 reserved as a "dead" exchange number.
He couldn't have sued Reagan, since Reagan didn't refer to missile defense as "Star Wars." Instead, "Star Wars" was what missile defense opponents coined to mock the Reagan plan, e.g., by comparing it to a sci-fi movie, they were saying the plan was a fantasy that would never come to fruition. Lucas would have had to sue the Democrats, if anyone.
While I agree that most PBS news/politics programs lean to the left, PBS had the greatest, most truly evenhanded political debate show on television: William F. Buckley's "Firing Line." While Buckley is an unabashed conservative, Firing Line invited serious-minded people of all political stripes (unlike the hack guests on MSNBC, etc.) and engaged them in real discussions instead of sound-bite fests.
Firing Line was cancelled last year owing to Buckley's advanced age and declining health after well over thirty years on-air. It will be sorely missed.
David Boeis is not now, nor ever has been, a Justice Department attorney. His role in the antitrust suit was as a representative of the other software companies charging Microsoft with antitrust violations. He is, and always has been, an attorney in private practice. He is not a government attorney. You'll note that in addition to his role in the Microsoft antitrust case and on the Gore legal team, he has also represented Napster in their case.
At the federal level, all "Article III" judges are appointed for life. That includes US Supreme Court justices, Circuit Courts of Appeals judges, and District Court judges.
Only so-called "Article I" judges do not have life tenure. These are typically specialty courts, such as the bankruptcy courts.
Of course, the states can make their own rules for state judgeships, so a state judge's tenure is all over the map. Some states elect their judges to a term (even at the state supreme court level), other appoint for a term, and some may even have life tenure.
We Americans knew about the atrocities in Europe and we couldn't be bothered to help England out when they were fighting the Nazis alone.
1. The atrocities related to the Holocaust were largely unknown until after Allied forces entered Germany.
2. As to the notion that we "didn't help England" -- have you ever heard of lend-lease? We provided the Brits with a lot of war material. Just because we didn't start sending troops until Germany declared war on us didn't mean we sat idly by on our hands.
you can't picket close to an abortion clinic I agree here too. The people have the right to peacefully assemble. As soon as their are multiple cases of extremist killing abortionist, it suddenly becomes non-peaceful.
Just because SOME pro-life people are violent doesn't mean that ALL of them are violent, and furthermore those who have killed abortionists have not done so at picket lines. Restricting pro-lifers from protesting on the grounds that some abortionists have been killed is like restricting environmentalists from protesting on the grounds that Ted Kaczynski sent people mailbombs.
Running for any elective offices requires compliance with state (for statewide offices) and local (for non-statewide offices) regulations, which differ greatly from place to place. Assuming you are running as an independent, it may be easier to run for local offices (e.g., dogcatcher) than for a Congressional office; in some places, running for high office requires getting signatures, etc., for you to appear on the ballot, while lower offices do not. In many places it is just a matter of paying a small fee to the election board to put your name on the ballot. It really just depends on where you live.
Getting into the House has very little to do with the size of the state in which you run. Congressional districts are all approximately the same size (around 600,000 people in each). The only way the size of the state would matter would be if you were running in an extremely low-density state like Wyoming, with a population less than the typical district size (and, I note, in those states it is just as easy to run for Senate as it is for the House).
The bigger thing to be concerned with regarding running for the House is gerrymandered districts. Many district lines are drawn so as to insure a particular political party or racial classification wins the seat.
Now THAT is funny. Wonder if they managed to work in the "turtle people" from Seattle, or if they managed to get Rage Against the Machine to do the soundtrack.
Re:To heck with you, you ingrateful UKian
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
True, but US cryptographers had already cracked the Enigma code before the Brits nabbed the machine.
Generally speaking, all federal judges serve for life, from the district court all the way up to the Supreme Court. That is a Constitutional requirement.
There are a couple of exceptions that hinge on whether the judge is an "Article I judge" (and thus lacks life tenure) or an "Article III judge (who must have life tenure). Basically, Article I judges are federal "specialty court" judges, e.g., bankruptcy court judges. District court judges, circuit courts of appeals judges, and Supreme Court justices are all Article III judges and thus all have life tenure.
An Article III judge can only be removed via the impeachment process, resignation, or death.
Of course, none of this applies to state (as opposed to federal) judges, who are subject to the tenure rules of whatever state they preside in.
Courts can overturn and invalidate laws if they overstretch the bounds Congress is held within (namely, the constitution, or previous laws that contradict the newer law).
You're half right. Congress cannot go beyond the bounds of the Constitution, but you are incorrect in saying that prior laws trump later laws. If there is a conflict between an older statute and a newer statute, the newer statute prevails.
Due process, properly understood, is just a guarantee of procedural fairness; that is, everyone involved in a dispute has the right to be heard, and the process for resolving disputes is basically the same for everyone. It is not a guarantee of fairness in some cosmic sense of the word; when you start doing that, you basically cede legislative power to the courts.
Arrests need not be for jailable offenses; for example, if you are walking around buck naked, you will probably be arrested, even though the offense most likely does not carry prison time. Again, it may be dumb to allow arrests for misdemeanor traffic violations, but that is a decision that must be made at the local level. It simply is not a constitutional issue.
The Constitution does not prevent all "bad" things nor does it promote all "good" things. It prevents what it says it prevents and promotes what it says it promotes and nothing more. It is not a guarantee of cosmic perfection for every issue in American life today.
The Supreme Court didn't exempt speeding; the statute, as written, specifically exempted speeding as a nonarrestable offense.
While I deplore the fact that some dumb cop thought it would be a good idea to haul this lady off, and while I think this kind of thing *ought* to be nonarrestable, the Supreme Court actually made the right call in the case. The issue is one of federalism.
The Constitution does not forbid arrests for minor offenses; it only requires that probable cause exist that an arrestable offense has been committed before an arrest is made. If the court had ruled differently, it would be substituting its own judgment for that of the people of Texas (acting through their legislature). The court is not supposed to do that; it is supposed to respect the decisions of elected legislatures unless there is an actual Constitutional violation.
Again, this is a bad law that should be changed. But it should be changed in the proper way: through the legislative process, and not through judicial fiat. Anything else would be an usurpation by the federal courts of a power not given to them.
Statistics like this are almost deliberately misleading. Lawyers in America wear many hats; I, for example, practice corporate law and will likely never see the inside of a courtroom. However, I am still a lawyer -- I have a law license, and am therefore legally permitted to represent clients in court. Thus, I am counted as an "lawyer" for the above statistics. However, when they count lawyers for other countries, they are usually just counting trial lawyers. Because individuals who perform non-trial services that are handled by lawyers in America have a different job title abroad (e.g., they aren't given the same job title as a trial practitioner), those non-trial service providers aren't counted. Thus, the statistic is misleading.
A cap on the number of doctors or lawyers would not decrease medical or legal costs; such a cap would cause costs to increase. Basic supply and demand: reduce the supply of service providers, and the cost of the service will increase. Hillary's a freakin' idiot.
The answer to that is obvious: they want to have absolute control over the content of the DVD discs themselves. That does not change the analysis, however. There is no attempt here to monopolize the tied product, i.e., DVD players. Again, the studios do not manufacture players; they manufacture DVD content. The license requirements are not "tying" as that term is used in antitrust law.
1. Copyright is a limited monpoly--so strengthening that monopoly (eliminating fair use) or distorting the market for another product with that monopoly (controlling the licensing for DVD players) would seem to violate anti trust laws.
Well, no. Seeking to change the law regarding fair use, either through litigating to change the current law's interpretation or through lobbying for legislative change, is not an antitrust violation -- those are just methods of changing the law, they aren't business practices that fall under the ambit of the antitrust laws.
As to the tying question, tying is only illegal if it is used by a monopolist in one market to gain monopoly power in another unrelated market. The studios are not in the business of making DVD players, and are not entering into that business. The licensing scheme does not "bootstrap" them into a second market. Ergo, no antitrust problem.
2. The DVDCCA, which purports to license DVD players is a front for and created by the studios. Only the studios have the authority to permit decryption of their works under the DMCA, so either the DVDCCA is the agent of the member studios, or the MPAA should be suing them for violating the DMCA. Since the latter isn't the case, the former can be safely assumed.
No one really questions that the DVDCCA is an arm of the studios.
The connection between the market for DVD players and DVD media is ofuscated, but by observing the actions of the players, their relationship is clear... and reeks of an illegal trust.
Except it isn't. As I've shown above, it isn't tying in the antitrust sense. And it isn't collusion between parties trying to share monopoly power, either (if anything, the licensing scheme hurts DVD player manufacturers.)
There are good arguments in favor of 2600 in this case, but they aren't related to the antitrust laws.
Not quite. The MPAA is not trying to attain or solidify monopoly power in the tied product. The MPAA, and the studios individually, are not in the business of making DVD players. Thus, there is no antitrust violation in this arrangement.
Slashdot Mirror
"I have become Linus, destroyer of Windows."
Here's proof.
(Forgot to login, dammit...)
I think a better explanation is that Spider-Man is better written and better directed than Attack of the Clones. Occam's Razor and all that.
Oh, and dare I dream...first post?
I don't see why this would be any worse than the Federal Junk Fax Law that prevents random people from taking over your fax machine. In fact, Hooters was sued under this statute and ordered to pay a heck of a lot of money - enough that they won't be sending any more unsolicited faxes.
Homer's Patented Space-Age Out-of-This-World Moon Waffles
* Ingredients
+ One bag caramel cubes
+ Waffle mix
+ One bottle Liquid Smoke
+ One stick butter
* Directions
+ Empty bag of caramels onto waffle iron.
+ Add generous portion of waffle batter.
+ Add one bottle of Liquid Smoke.
+ Cook until burnt.
+ Wrap waffle around a stick of butter.
+ Serve on a toothpick.
Because for each random number they'd have to reserve the number for EVERY SINGLE AREA CODE. It's a lot easier to just have 555 reserved as a "dead" exchange number.
He couldn't have sued Reagan, since Reagan didn't refer to missile defense as "Star Wars." Instead, "Star Wars" was what missile defense opponents coined to mock the Reagan plan, e.g., by comparing it to a sci-fi movie, they were saying the plan was a fantasy that would never come to fruition. Lucas would have had to sue the Democrats, if anyone.
Firing Line was cancelled last year owing to Buckley's advanced age and declining health after well over thirty years on-air. It will be sorely missed.
David Boeis is not now, nor ever has been, a Justice Department attorney. His role in the antitrust suit was as a representative of the other software companies charging Microsoft with antitrust violations. He is, and always has been, an attorney in private practice. He is not a government attorney. You'll note that in addition to his role in the Microsoft antitrust case and on the Gore legal team, he has also represented Napster in their case.
Only so-called "Article I" judges do not have life tenure. These are typically specialty courts, such as the bankruptcy courts.
Of course, the states can make their own rules for state judgeships, so a state judge's tenure is all over the map. Some states elect their judges to a term (even at the state supreme court level), other appoint for a term, and some may even have life tenure.
1. The atrocities related to the Holocaust were largely unknown until after Allied forces entered Germany.
2. As to the notion that we "didn't help England" -- have you ever heard of lend-lease? We provided the Brits with a lot of war material. Just because we didn't start sending troops until Germany declared war on us didn't mean we sat idly by on our hands.
you can't picket close to an abortion clinic I agree here too. The people have the right to peacefully assemble. As soon as their are multiple cases of extremist killing abortionist, it suddenly becomes non-peaceful. Just because SOME pro-life people are violent doesn't mean that ALL of them are violent, and furthermore those who have killed abortionists have not done so at picket lines. Restricting pro-lifers from protesting on the grounds that some abortionists have been killed is like restricting environmentalists from protesting on the grounds that Ted Kaczynski sent people mailbombs.
Running for any elective offices requires compliance with state (for statewide offices) and local (for non-statewide offices) regulations, which differ greatly from place to place. Assuming you are running as an independent, it may be easier to run for local offices (e.g., dogcatcher) than for a Congressional office; in some places, running for high office requires getting signatures, etc., for you to appear on the ballot, while lower offices do not. In many places it is just a matter of paying a small fee to the election board to put your name on the ballot. It really just depends on where you live.
The bigger thing to be concerned with regarding running for the House is gerrymandered districts. Many district lines are drawn so as to insure a particular political party or racial classification wins the seat.
Now THAT is funny. Wonder if they managed to work in the "turtle people" from Seattle, or if they managed to get Rage Against the Machine to do the soundtrack.
True, but US cryptographers had already cracked the Enigma code before the Brits nabbed the machine.
There are a couple of exceptions that hinge on whether the judge is an "Article I judge" (and thus lacks life tenure) or an "Article III judge (who must have life tenure). Basically, Article I judges are federal "specialty court" judges, e.g., bankruptcy court judges. District court judges, circuit courts of appeals judges, and Supreme Court justices are all Article III judges and thus all have life tenure.
An Article III judge can only be removed via the impeachment process, resignation, or death.
Of course, none of this applies to state (as opposed to federal) judges, who are subject to the tenure rules of whatever state they preside in.
You're half right. Congress cannot go beyond the bounds of the Constitution, but you are incorrect in saying that prior laws trump later laws. If there is a conflict between an older statute and a newer statute, the newer statute prevails.
Arrests need not be for jailable offenses; for example, if you are walking around buck naked, you will probably be arrested, even though the offense most likely does not carry prison time. Again, it may be dumb to allow arrests for misdemeanor traffic violations, but that is a decision that must be made at the local level. It simply is not a constitutional issue.
The Constitution does not prevent all "bad" things nor does it promote all "good" things. It prevents what it says it prevents and promotes what it says it promotes and nothing more. It is not a guarantee of cosmic perfection for every issue in American life today.
While I deplore the fact that some dumb cop thought it would be a good idea to haul this lady off, and while I think this kind of thing *ought* to be nonarrestable, the Supreme Court actually made the right call in the case. The issue is one of federalism.
The Constitution does not forbid arrests for minor offenses; it only requires that probable cause exist that an arrestable offense has been committed before an arrest is made. If the court had ruled differently, it would be substituting its own judgment for that of the people of Texas (acting through their legislature). The court is not supposed to do that; it is supposed to respect the decisions of elected legislatures unless there is an actual Constitutional violation.
Again, this is a bad law that should be changed. But it should be changed in the proper way: through the legislative process, and not through judicial fiat. Anything else would be an usurpation by the federal courts of a power not given to them.
Statistics like this are almost deliberately misleading. Lawyers in America wear many hats; I, for example, practice corporate law and will likely never see the inside of a courtroom. However, I am still a lawyer -- I have a law license, and am therefore legally permitted to represent clients in court. Thus, I am counted as an "lawyer" for the above statistics. However, when they count lawyers for other countries, they are usually just counting trial lawyers. Because individuals who perform non-trial services that are handled by lawyers in America have a different job title abroad (e.g., they aren't given the same job title as a trial practitioner), those non-trial service providers aren't counted. Thus, the statistic is misleading.
A cap on the number of doctors or lawyers would not decrease medical or legal costs; such a cap would cause costs to increase. Basic supply and demand: reduce the supply of service providers, and the cost of the service will increase. Hillary's a freakin' idiot.
The answer to that is obvious: they want to have absolute control over the content of the DVD discs themselves. That does not change the analysis, however. There is no attempt here to monopolize the tied product, i.e., DVD players. Again, the studios do not manufacture players; they manufacture DVD content. The license requirements are not "tying" as that term is used in antitrust law.
Well, no. Seeking to change the law regarding fair use, either through litigating to change the current law's interpretation or through lobbying for legislative change, is not an antitrust violation -- those are just methods of changing the law, they aren't business practices that fall under the ambit of the antitrust laws.
As to the tying question, tying is only illegal if it is used by a monopolist in one market to gain monopoly power in another unrelated market. The studios are not in the business of making DVD players, and are not entering into that business. The licensing scheme does not "bootstrap" them into a second market. Ergo, no antitrust problem.
2. The DVDCCA, which purports to license DVD players is a front for and created by the studios. Only the studios have the authority to permit decryption of their works under the DMCA, so either the DVDCCA is the agent of the member studios, or the MPAA should be suing them for violating the DMCA. Since the latter isn't the case, the former can be safely assumed.
No one really questions that the DVDCCA is an arm of the studios.
The connection between the market for DVD players and DVD media is ofuscated, but by observing the actions of the players, their relationship is clear... and reeks of an illegal trust.
Except it isn't. As I've shown above, it isn't tying in the antitrust sense. And it isn't collusion between parties trying to share monopoly power, either (if anything, the licensing scheme hurts DVD player manufacturers.)
There are good arguments in favor of 2600 in this case, but they aren't related to the antitrust laws.
Not quite. The MPAA is not trying to attain or solidify monopoly power in the tied product. The MPAA, and the studios individually, are not in the business of making DVD players. Thus, there is no antitrust violation in this arrangement.