Sometimes there are multiple cases which offer similar questions but different facts. If they pick one case that has a lot of complicating factors, where they might not even be able to get to the main question they want to answer because an "easier" solution comes up to get rid of the problem, that's an ineffective use of the court's time. Better to take the case that gets to the heart of the question and ensure that they can actually be effective.
I remember checking into the claim of a security change when the claim was first made. It was easily disproven by checking my Facebook E-mail notifications from 2007. Every message that had been identified as a private message was not on my wall, and every message that was on my wall had been identified as a wall post.
It should also be noted that Costco only loses this particular defense. The case now resumes back in the District Circuit, where Costco can raise other defenses to Omega's claims. Any of those other defenses could potentially save them, but of course the District Court's rulings on whether those defenses may be used can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court again.
And once all of these preliminary matters have been heard, then the actual trial will begin, and whichever side loses can appeal the decision in the case up to the Circuit Court, and even the Supreme Court.
[730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a)...] The conditions of every parole and mandatory supervised release are that the subject: [...] (7.12) if convicted of a sex offense [...definition location...] committed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly, refrain from accessing or using a social networking website [...definition location...];
[730 ILCS 5/5-6-3(a)] The conditions of probation and of conditional discharge shall be that the person: [...] (8.9) if convicted of a sex offense [...definition location...] committed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly, refrain from accessing or using a social networking website [...definition location...];
[730 ILCS 5/5-6-3.1] (s) An offender placed on supervision for a sex offense [...definition location...] committed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 96th General Assembly shall refrain from accessing or using a social networking website [...definition location...].
There is nothing ex post facto about this law. It only applies to people who are convicted of crimes committed after the law takes effect.
when a 1500 page bill lands on a congresscritter's desk 2-3 days before the vote, what do you expect?
I expect them to vote "No", on the grounds that they don't know whether it's a good bill or not. Sure, whoever gave them the document said it was a good bill, but a Congressman should know better than to trust another Congressman.
"Driving speeds are in KM/H and distances in KM and meters, but western Canada was surveyed in miles, so we have mile roads, townships, acres, etc."
Fascinating... Canada has its own unique unit, the township, which apparently isn't in use anywhere else. In the US, a township is a political or organizational area which may be of any size. Actually, it looks like it is that way in much of Canada as well; it's only in a few provinces where "township" refers to a 6 mi × 6 mi square.
Because a recent novel trilogy—Crucible by David R. George, III—was based significantly on that episode (among others). The books came out in late 2006, and Harlan announced at that time that he was planning to sue Pocket Books/Paramount to either scrap the books or get gobs of money.
As for why it took two and a half years from "I'll sue!" to actually suing, I'd imagine that his lawyer(s) tried negotiating with Paramount/Pocket first.
"It changes how they define planets. They have created a new piece technical legal jargon, 'planet.' All this means is that when you are talking to the government, and in the far-fetched situation where the word 'planet' comes up, you and the government are speaking a different language."
Actually, it means that astronomers and the Illinois government are speaking a different language. People are free to use the word "planet" as it's defined in the English language, and don't have to use it in the way that a small group of scientists use it, nor in the way that a small group of politicians use it.
If the Illinois government used the word "planet" around me, they'd be using it the same way that I do.
It may just be a coincidence, but my Gmail account became "disabled" on January 1. When I tried to log in the evening of the 1st, it came back with the message "Sorry, your account has been disabled. [?]". The question mark was a link to instructions on how to re-enable it, but those instructions are apparently out of date. They say that if your account is disabled, you can enter your username and password, and you'll be presented with a CAPTCHA; if you enter that, you'll be allowed to log in. However, I was never presented with a CAPTCHA, so I can't complete the steps.
Has this Gmail outage affected anybody else? Is this a repeat of the December 6th outage, or is it just me?
Several times in the PDF, the word "uninstallable" is used. However, it is used incorrectly. If the program actually were "uninstallable", then one of two things would be the case: (1) you would be able to uninstall it, or (2) you would not be able to install it.
Neither of these is the case. I believe the word the author was looking for was "ununinstallable", meaning that it could not be uninstalled.
Let's hope the lawsuit is undismissable because of this typo.
It's even worse than that -- don't forget GHW Bush was vice president for Reagan from 1980-88. Unless you're over 35, chances are you can't remember a country that didn't have a Bush or Clinton in the White House.
GHWB wasn't in the White House until 1989. From 1981-1989, he lived at Number One Observatory Circle, about two and a half miles away from the White House.
Parents have some influence, but it's by no means absolute. Keep in mind that teenagers often rebel against their parents, and that may lead to a child with Democratic parents developing Republican beliefs, or vice versa.
And in families that don't tend to talk politics a lot, children develop their own beliefs based on other factors (such as what their friends think, what they see on the news or read in the paper, etc.). My parents are both Democrats, but I didn't realize that until I was an adult, by which point I had already decided that the Republican party's platform was closer to my own political beliefs than the Democratic party's.
You can find the "Permanent link" in the sidebar to the left (in the default layout; it may be in a different location if you view the site with a different skin).
You touched on this, but there's also national differences in units in the standard system. In the UK, a "ton" is 2240 pounds. In the US, a "ton" is 2000 pounds. In the UK, a gallon is 160 ounces. In the US, a gallon is 128 ounces.
More specifically, I don't believe there *is* such a thing as an officer-in-line-of-succession-elect. If something were to happen to both the President-elect and the Vice President-elect between the election and the inauguration, then according to Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, "the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
It appears that it doesn't automatically fall to the Speaker of the House in this unlikely scenario; rather, the House would vote on the issue (according to Section 4). Yes, the Speaker is usually a member of the majority party, they certainly have a good shot at winning the vote in the House, but it's not guaranteed.
I guess I'll have to prove you wrong. I am conservative, and I believe the role of judges is to interpret what the law *says*, not what the lawmakers should have had it say. If there is a flaw in the law, it is the role of legislators to correct it, not the role of judges.
As it stands now, legislators may see this ruling as indicating that they don't need to do anything about the law, because "the judiciary will take care of it". But what happens in a few years when some justices have retired and others have been appointed, and they get more strict in their interpretation of the law? Suddenly, everybody who had been wrongly convicted will be let go (or at least re-tried) because what they did didn't actually violate the law that existed.
(It's not as if he'd walk away with a clean record, since he'd still have a conviction for luring a minor for sex.)
Why is it not double jeopardy to face charges of both "soliciting a minor" and "soliciting a minor through such-and-such method of communication"? If you are found guilty of the second, you are necessarily guilty of the first, but you have committed only one distinct crime.
>So black-letter law is to allow for those that are obviously guilty to walk free because of loopholes that were not intended to be part of the law?
Obviously guilty of what, though? Not the law in question, but something different.
If a law says that it is illegal to ship hamsters via mail, and you ship hamsters via FedEx, have you violated that particular law? No, because FedEx is not the mail. Likewise, if a law says that it is illegal to solicit a minor via E-mail, and you (the generic "you", obviously) solicit a minor via IRC, have you violated that particular law? No, because IRC is not E-mail.
According to Kevin Mooney, a web developer at cbs.com, the reasons for removing "Beyond Jericho" from the website were unclear, but may be related to the WGA situation. See the Jericho talk page at Wikipedia for more info.
> not pay writers? sheet. if these people worked for nbc, would nbc not pay them for the time during their work day they wrote?
Nobody said that they weren't paid at all. The article just says that they don't get paid residuals, which are extra payments, above and beyond what they are initially paid for their work, that writers (among other professions) get paid when their material is aired again, whether as a regular rerun during the season, during a marathon, or in syndication.
There are some good debatable issues here. When the show is broascast on television as a rerun, that is obviously a second airing, which generates residuals. But when is the "second airing" for a downloadable episode?
If one million people download an episode over the course of one week, should that count as one million "airings", or seven (one per day), or just one (for the week)?
If residuals are to be based on how long an episode is available for download, will that cause networks to remove episodes after a week, because to keep it up longer would trigger more payments to the writers (et al.)?
> The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore.
I believe it will set a precedent that only courts in the same district can't ignore; courts in other districts can ignore it, though they may choose to take it as a persuasive authority. Only precedents from the Supreme Court of the United States are binding on *all* lower courts.
Slashdot Mirror
Who would store a numeric timestamp as a varchar? Certainly storing it as a numeric value type would be more appropriate.
Sometimes there are multiple cases which offer similar questions but different facts. If they pick one case that has a lot of complicating factors, where they might not even be able to get to the main question they want to answer because an "easier" solution comes up to get rid of the problem, that's an ineffective use of the court's time. Better to take the case that gets to the heart of the question and ensure that they can actually be effective.
I remember checking into the claim of a security change when the claim was first made. It was easily disproven by checking my Facebook E-mail notifications from 2007. Every message that had been identified as a private message was not on my wall, and every message that was on my wall had been identified as a wall post.
It should also be noted that Costco only loses this particular defense. The case now resumes back in the District Circuit, where Costco can raise other defenses to Omega's claims. Any of those other defenses could potentially save them, but of course the District Court's rulings on whether those defenses may be used can be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court again.
And once all of these preliminary matters have been heard, then the actual trial will begin, and whichever side loses can appeal the decision in the case up to the Circuit Court, and even the Supreme Court.
davidh
The main problem with the Illinois law is not that it limits free speech, but that it is ex-post facto sentencing.
No, it's not. From the text of the law (Public Act 096-0262):
There is nothing ex post facto about this law. It only applies to people who are convicted of crimes committed after the law takes effect.
davidh
I expect them to vote "No", on the grounds that they don't know whether it's a good bill or not. Sure, whoever gave them the document said it was a good bill, but a Congressman should know better than to trust another Congressman.
davidh
"Driving speeds are in KM/H and distances in KM and meters, but western Canada was surveyed in miles, so we have mile roads, townships, acres, etc."
Fascinating... Canada has its own unique unit, the township, which apparently isn't in use anywhere else. In the US, a township is a political or organizational area which may be of any size. Actually, it looks like it is that way in much of Canada as well; it's only in a few provinces where "township" refers to a 6 mi × 6 mi square.
davidh
I've never been able to make a collect call to a cell phone. I'm told that that is because cell phone providers block incoming collect calls.
davidh
"why is this coming up now?"
Because a recent novel trilogy—Crucible by David R. George, III—was based significantly on that episode (among others). The books came out in late 2006, and Harlan announced at that time that he was planning to sue Pocket Books/Paramount to either scrap the books or get gobs of money.
As for why it took two and a half years from "I'll sue!" to actually suing, I'd imagine that his lawyer(s) tried negotiating with Paramount/Pocket first.
davidh
"It changes how they define planets. They have created a new piece technical legal jargon, 'planet.' All this means is that when you are talking to the government, and in the far-fetched situation where the word 'planet' comes up, you and the government are speaking a different language."
Actually, it means that astronomers and the Illinois government are speaking a different language. People are free to use the word "planet" as it's defined in the English language, and don't have to use it in the way that a small group of scientists use it, nor in the way that a small group of politicians use it.
If the Illinois government used the word "planet" around me, they'd be using it the same way that I do.
davidh
It may just be a coincidence, but my Gmail account became "disabled" on January 1. When I tried to log in the evening of the 1st, it came back with the message "Sorry, your account has been disabled. [?]". The question mark was a link to instructions on how to re-enable it, but those instructions are apparently out of date. They say that if your account is disabled, you can enter your username and password, and you'll be presented with a CAPTCHA; if you enter that, you'll be allowed to log in. However, I was never presented with a CAPTCHA, so I can't complete the steps.
Has this Gmail outage affected anybody else? Is this a repeat of the December 6th outage, or is it just me?
davidh
Several times in the PDF, the word "uninstallable" is used. However, it is used incorrectly. If the program actually were "uninstallable", then one of two things would be the case: (1) you would be able to uninstall it, or (2) you would not be able to install it.
Neither of these is the case. I believe the word the author was looking for was "ununinstallable", meaning that it could not be uninstalled.
Let's hope the lawsuit is undismissable because of this typo.
davidh
GHWB wasn't in the White House until 1989. From 1981-1989, he lived at Number One Observatory Circle, about two and a half miles away from the White House.
davidh
Does "I have a cat" count as a lawful reason? davidh
Parents have some influence, but it's by no means absolute. Keep in mind that teenagers often rebel against their parents, and that may lead to a child with Democratic parents developing Republican beliefs, or vice versa.
And in families that don't tend to talk politics a lot, children develop their own beliefs based on other factors (such as what their friends think, what they see on the news or read in the paper, etc.). My parents are both Democrats, but I didn't realize that until I was an adult, by which point I had already decided that the Republican party's platform was closer to my own political beliefs than the Democratic party's.
davidh
It may have changed by the time you submit your paper! How do you even accurately cite it?
By including the permanent URL. For example, if you want to cite the current (as I write this) version of the Wikipedia article about the Deficit Rediction Act of 2005, you'd include this URL:_ Reduction_Act_of_2005&oldid=102776464
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deficit
You can find the "Permanent link" in the sidebar to the left (in the default layout; it may be in a different location if you view the site with a different skin).
davidh
You touched on this, but there's also national differences in units in the standard system. In the UK, a "ton" is 2240 pounds. In the US, a "ton" is 2000 pounds. In the UK, a gallon is 160 ounces. In the US, a gallon is 128 ounces.
davidh
More specifically, I don't believe there *is* such a thing as an officer-in-line-of-succession-elect. If something were to happen to both the President-elect and the Vice President-elect between the election and the inauguration, then according to Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, "the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
It appears that it doesn't automatically fall to the Speaker of the House in this unlikely scenario; rather, the House would vote on the issue (according to Section 4). Yes, the Speaker is usually a member of the majority party, they certainly have a good shot at winning the vote in the House, but it's not guaranteed.
davidh
I guess I'll have to prove you wrong. I am conservative, and I believe the role of judges is to interpret what the law *says*, not what the lawmakers should have had it say. If there is a flaw in the law, it is the role of legislators to correct it, not the role of judges.
As it stands now, legislators may see this ruling as indicating that they don't need to do anything about the law, because "the judiciary will take care of it". But what happens in a few years when some justices have retired and others have been appointed, and they get more strict in their interpretation of the law? Suddenly, everybody who had been wrongly convicted will be let go (or at least re-tried) because what they did didn't actually violate the law that existed.
davidh
(It's not as if he'd walk away with a clean record, since he'd still have a conviction for luring a minor for sex.)
Why is it not double jeopardy to face charges of both "soliciting a minor" and "soliciting a minor through such-and-such method of communication"? If you are found guilty of the second, you are necessarily guilty of the first, but you have committed only one distinct crime.
davidh
Obviously guilty of what, though? Not the law in question, but something different.
If a law says that it is illegal to ship hamsters via mail, and you ship hamsters via FedEx, have you violated that particular law? No, because FedEx is not the mail. Likewise, if a law says that it is illegal to solicit a minor via E-mail, and you (the generic "you", obviously) solicit a minor via IRC, have you violated that particular law? No, because IRC is not E-mail.
davidh
According to Kevin Mooney, a web developer at cbs.com, the reasons for removing "Beyond Jericho" from the website were unclear, but may be related to the WGA situation. See the Jericho talk page at Wikipedia for more info.
davidh
> not pay writers? sheet. if these people worked for nbc, would nbc not pay them for the time during their work day they wrote?
Nobody said that they weren't paid at all. The article just says that they don't get paid residuals, which are extra payments, above and beyond what they are initially paid for their work, that writers (among other professions) get paid when their material is aired again, whether as a regular rerun during the season, during a marathon, or in syndication.
There are some good debatable issues here. When the show is broascast on television as a rerun, that is obviously a second airing, which generates residuals. But when is the "second airing" for a downloadable episode?
If one million people download an episode over the course of one week, should that count as one million "airings", or seven (one per day), or just one (for the week)?
If residuals are to be based on how long an episode is available for download, will that cause networks to remove episodes after a week, because to keep it up longer would trigger more payments to the writers (et al.)?
davidh
Actually, the definition you quoted is of "comp" as a noun. "comp" as a verb would be something like:
"Comp: To give a complimentary or free item and/or service to e.g. a gambler (by a casino) for their business."
davidh
> The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore.
I believe it will set a precedent that only courts in the same district can't ignore; courts in other districts can ignore it, though they may choose to take it as a persuasive authority. Only precedents from the Supreme Court of the United States are binding on *all* lower courts.
davidh