The lawyer in question, Pegeen Rhyne, holds himself out as being appointed as an AUSA back in 2001, which would make him a Bush appointee. It's also exceedingly unlikely that this position got put before the Attorney General, let alone the President.
Also, you have to remember that this is a settlement, not a court decision. A settlement, being a compromise between the plaintiffs and defendants, will naturally be less than what the full value of the judgment could be. Additionally, the lawyers would have gotten much more in fees had the case gone to trial, because trials in class actions can get very expensive very quickly.
It was really SMS that inspired the further direction -- the particular constraint of 140 characters was kind of borrowed. You have a natural constraint with the couriers when you update your location or with IM when you update your status. But SMS allowed this other constraint, where most basic phones are limited to 160 characters before they split the messages. So in order to minimize the hassle and thinking around receiving a message, we wanted to make sure that we were not splitting any messages. So we took 20 characters for the user name, and left 140 for the content. That’s where it all came from.
No, "productive" in this context means "substantive," "based in reality," "possible in the current political climate," and, most importantly, "not subject to the Internet-poll effect." The highest rated "idea" right now is basically telling people to shut the fuck up about their bullshit Birtherism. That may be many things, but it's not "productive."
By narrowing the topic of discussion, it filtered out more of the trolls and thereby increased the signal-to-noise ratio.
The school officials were not held individually responsible, because it was not "clearly established law" (there were enough lower court decisions holding that such searches were legitimate to make it difficult for the Supreme Court to hold that the law was "clearly established"). That does not, however, mean that "there was no punishment." The school district was still liable, which is generally the more important thing, because the school district is the entity with the deepest pockets.
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
There's a difference between talking about the law and "legal advice." I have an ethical obligation to avoid giving anyone a sense that I am forming an attorney-client relationship with them by giving them legal advice. The signature is a snarky way of making it clear that, while I might be talking about the law, I am not giving anyone any legal advice in any sense that should be relied upon.
As for my client pool, my client is the largest employer in the country, so I'm not exactly looking to build a private practice. My goal in coming here is to talk nerdery, being a geek who dual-classed into law.
Re:Can someone who understands the IRS explain?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I'm not a tax attorney, but I do know a little about the situation. Here's a brief summary:
There's a lot of concern over how to classify workers as either "employees" or "independent contractors." Each has its own pros and cons, but in general, it's better for a company to consider its workers as contractors from a tax perspective. Because taxes are radically different based on how an employee is classified, a misclassification that is turned up by the IRS can be very expensive for a company. As such, there is a "safe harbor" which protects companies who have a reasonable basis in considering an employee to be an independent contractor.
There was a sense this was being abused in the technology industry in the 1980s, and as such, Congress amended the law. The amendment didn't change the classification system of employees versus independent contractors, but did remove the safe harbor. As such, companies became much more reticent to hire a worker as an independent contractor, because the penalty for getting it wrong was much more likely to be assessed.
You leave your phone outside in the cold for hours on end in "normal daily use?" Or do you keep it on your person, which is presumably warmer than -15C?
No, you can't comment on the proposed rule-making there, because that's the wrong rule-making. Perhaps you should take your own advice of "do[ing] your research first."
If you read the damn thing, you'd see where it said "ACTION: Final rule; corrections." You'd see that they already accepted comments, and that this final rule responds to those comments. The rule you've linked to is already effective, and mostly has been effective for over a year now.
The proposed rule that you can comment on is PHMSA 2009-0095, not PHMSA 2007-0065.
It's probably too late to stop the avalanche of fail created by a few idiots who can't read the links they're providing. As I said a few times in the other post, the proper cite is PHMSA-2009-0095.
The only one who's absolutely clueless here is you. The proposed rule doesn't ban batteries.
17. In Sec. 175.10, paragraph (a)(17) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators.
(a) * * *
(17) Except as provided in Sec. 173.21 of this subchapter, portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculating machines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers, camcorders, etc.) containing dry cells or dry batteries (including lithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for these devices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use. Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven to meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so as to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only. In addition, each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:
(i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than 2 grams per battery; or
(ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh, except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than 100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.
Yes, the above-mentioned amendment was not in the linked article. The preamble explaining that the changes to Section 172.220 were only changing an incorrect citation, however, was.
And yes, I'm well aware that arguments will frequently be based on nothing more than an individual's instincts about a given issue. That's why they are so frequently wrong.
Further, this January 4, 2010 rule-making didn't substantively change the law in Section 172.220, because all it did was remove an incorrect citation from the rule which was previously put into force on January 14, 2009.
Explains PHMSA:
This section specifies the conditions for transportation of internal combustion engines, vehicles, and mechanical equipment and battery-powered vehicles and equipment. In the January 14, 2009 final rule, we clarified the provisions for the transport of batteries and battery-powered devices including the transport of vehicles and equipment powered by batteries. In paragraph (d), we included an incorrect reference to Sec. 173.185 regarding an exception to the prohibition of lithium metal batteries aboard passenger-carrying aircraft. In this final rule, we are correcting paragraph (d) to reference the correct provision, specifically, Sec. 172.102, Special Provision A101.
I'd actually say it's more likely ignorance than malice; I bet the author of the original article searched Regulations.gov for "lithium batteries" and linked to the first docket they found from PHMSA.
One of the synergy bonuses you get with a proficiency in Regulatese is the knowledge that Regulations.gov is terribly organized, so I went to PHMSA's website and pulled up their NPRM section.
Your babbling comment will likely be ignored, because you don't actually address the substance of the regulation. It will also be readily apparent that you didn't read the preamble to the rule, since it specifically cites examples of incidents where lithium batteries have caused fires on aircraft.
This is all the law as it was, not the new regulations being proposed.
Additionally, as you point out, this is only about primary cells, not lithium-ion rechargables. As such, your cite is completely irrelevant to a discussion of laptops.
The relevant rule-making makes clear that passengers can continue to carry laptops with them:
17. In Sec. 175.10, paragraph (a)(17) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators.
(a) * * *
(17) Except as provided in Sec. 173.21 of this subchapter, portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculating machines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers, camcorders, etc.) containing dry cells or dry batteries (including lithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for these devices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use. Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven to meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so as to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only. In addition, each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:
(i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than 2 grams per battery; or
(ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh, except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than 100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.
In the rule-making actually at issue (PHMSA-2009-0095), rather than the one incorrectly linked by this page and others, the following paragraph is added to 49 C.F.R Section175.10:
Sec. 175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators.
(a) * * *
(17) Except as provided in Sec. 173.21 of this subchapter, portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculating machines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers, camcorders, etc.) containing dry cells or dry batteries (including lithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for these devices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use. Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven to meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so as to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only. In addition, each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:
(i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than 2 grams per battery; or
(ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh, except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than 100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.
As someone fluent in Regulatese, I can tell you that you're entirely correct. The correct rule-making is at PHMSA-2009-0095. I'm wondering if I should write the editor to see if a correction can be made, but I'm thinking that Slashdot apathy will prevent too many people from submitting comments to the wrong docket entry.
As anyone who can read could tell you, the rule-making linked in the summary is for a final rule. The final rule isn't open for comment anymore - it's already published, already effective, and would require a new notice-and-comment cycle in order to change.
The rulemaking PHMSA is proposing is at PHMSA-2009-0095. PHMSA is not required to listen to any comments posted on the link above, because that docket is closed. Therefore, if you want your comments to be read, you should use the above link.
Because the analysis of many people has been on a rule that's only tangentially related to the rule-making at issue, much of what's been posted in this thread is 100% wrong. For instance, many people are saying that the rule would prohibit people from carrying spare batteries with them.
Sec. 175.10 Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators.
(a) * * *
(17) Except as provided in Sec. 173.21 of this subchapter, portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculating machines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers, camcorders, etc.) containing dry cells or dry batteries (including lithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for these devices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use. Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven to meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so as to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only. In addition, each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:
(i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than 2 grams per battery; or
(ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh, except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than 100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.
Not only can you continue to bring your electronics on the plane, you can bring spares for the devices as well, so long as you take the reasonable step of taping over the terminals.
Slashdot Mirror
The lawyer in question, Pegeen Rhyne, holds himself out as being appointed as an AUSA back in 2001, which would make him a Bush appointee. It's also exceedingly unlikely that this position got put before the Attorney General, let alone the President.
In what universe is 10% "the bulk?"
Also, you have to remember that this is a settlement, not a court decision. A settlement, being a compromise between the plaintiffs and defendants, will naturally be less than what the full value of the judgment could be. Additionally, the lawyers would have gotten much more in fees had the case gone to trial, because trials in class actions can get very expensive very quickly.
Not "may be," "is."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/02/twitter-creator.html
Perhaps because it was designed with SMS limitations in mind?
No, "productive" in this context means "substantive," "based in reality," "possible in the current political climate," and, most importantly, "not subject to the Internet-poll effect." The highest rated "idea" right now is basically telling people to shut the fuck up about their bullshit Birtherism. That may be many things, but it's not "productive."
By narrowing the topic of discussion, it filtered out more of the trolls and thereby increased the signal-to-noise ratio.
From TFA:
That's incorrect.
The school officials were not held individually responsible, because it was not "clearly established law" (there were enough lower court decisions holding that such searches were legitimate to make it difficult for the Supreme Court to hold that the law was "clearly established"). That does not, however, mean that "there was no punishment." The school district was still liable, which is generally the more important thing, because the school district is the entity with the deepest pockets.
There's a difference between talking about the law and "legal advice." I have an ethical obligation to avoid giving anyone a sense that I am forming an attorney-client relationship with them by giving them legal advice. The signature is a snarky way of making it clear that, while I might be talking about the law, I am not giving anyone any legal advice in any sense that should be relied upon.
As for my client pool, my client is the largest employer in the country, so I'm not exactly looking to build a private practice. My goal in coming here is to talk nerdery, being a geek who dual-classed into law.
I'm not a tax attorney, but I do know a little about the situation. Here's a brief summary:
There's a lot of concern over how to classify workers as either "employees" or "independent contractors." Each has its own pros and cons, but in general, it's better for a company to consider its workers as contractors from a tax perspective. Because taxes are radically different based on how an employee is classified, a misclassification that is turned up by the IRS can be very expensive for a company. As such, there is a "safe harbor" which protects companies who have a reasonable basis in considering an employee to be an independent contractor.
There was a sense this was being abused in the technology industry in the 1980s, and as such, Congress amended the law. The amendment didn't change the classification system of employees versus independent contractors, but did remove the safe harbor. As such, companies became much more reticent to hire a worker as an independent contractor, because the penalty for getting it wrong was much more likely to be assessed.
There is a very large difference between "cold to the touch" and "well below freezing."
You leave your phone outside in the cold for hours on end in "normal daily use?" Or do you keep it on your person, which is presumably warmer than -15C?
All regulatory agencies do this, because it is required by Executive Order 12866.
No, you can't comment on the proposed rule-making there, because that's the wrong rule-making. Perhaps you should take your own advice of "do[ing] your research first."
If you read the damn thing, you'd see where it said "ACTION: Final rule; corrections." You'd see that they already accepted comments, and that this final rule responds to those comments. The rule you've linked to is already effective, and mostly has been effective for over a year now.
The proposed rule that you can comment on is PHMSA 2009-0095, not PHMSA 2007-0065.
It's probably too late to stop the avalanche of fail created by a few idiots who can't read the links they're providing. As I said a few times in the other post, the proper cite is PHMSA-2009-0095.
The only one who's absolutely clueless here is you. The proposed rule doesn't ban batteries.
Yes, the above-mentioned amendment was not in the linked article. The preamble explaining that the changes to Section 172.220 were only changing an incorrect citation, however, was.
And yes, I'm well aware that arguments will frequently be based on nothing more than an individual's instincts about a given issue. That's why they are so frequently wrong.
Oh OK. Tell me, what did you "consider" in formulating this opinion, other than some ridiculous antipathy towards the UN?
As you can see in the amendment I've quoted above, PHMSA distinguishes between "lithium metal battery" and "lithium-ion battery." This is consistent with the terminology used in discussing hazardous materials and lithium related battery technologies. See, for instance, http://www.iata.org/NR/rdonlyres/31C08011-1A1E-49D6-A2D8-3D21A9DE887B/0/GuidanceDocumentonthetransportofLiBatt_2009V1.pdf .
Further, this January 4, 2010 rule-making didn't substantively change the law in Section 172.220, because all it did was remove an incorrect citation from the rule which was previously put into force on January 14, 2009.
Explains PHMSA:
The use of UN standards for hazardous materials (or "dangerous goods" in the international parlance) is a standard government-wide. See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Recommendations_on_the_Transport_of_Dangerous_Goods .
I'd actually say it's more likely ignorance than malice; I bet the author of the original article searched Regulations.gov for "lithium batteries" and linked to the first docket they found from PHMSA.
One of the synergy bonuses you get with a proficiency in Regulatese is the knowledge that Regulations.gov is terribly organized, so I went to PHMSA's website and pulled up their NPRM section.
Your babbling comment will likely be ignored, because you don't actually address the substance of the regulation. It will also be readily apparent that you didn't read the preamble to the rule, since it specifically cites examples of incidents where lithium batteries have caused fires on aircraft.
This is all the law as it was, not the new regulations being proposed.
Additionally, as you point out, this is only about primary cells, not lithium-ion rechargables. As such, your cite is completely irrelevant to a discussion of laptops.
The relevant rule-making makes clear that passengers can continue to carry laptops with them:
In the rule-making actually at issue (PHMSA-2009-0095), rather than the one incorrectly linked by this page and others, the following paragraph is added to 49 C.F.R Section175.10:
As someone fluent in Regulatese, I can tell you that you're entirely correct. The correct rule-making is at PHMSA-2009-0095. I'm wondering if I should write the editor to see if a correction can be made, but I'm thinking that Slashdot apathy will prevent too many people from submitting comments to the wrong docket entry.
As anyone who can read could tell you, the rule-making linked in the summary is for a final rule. The final rule isn't open for comment anymore - it's already published, already effective, and would require a new notice-and-comment cycle in order to change.
The rulemaking PHMSA is proposing is at PHMSA-2009-0095. PHMSA is not required to listen to any comments posted on the link above, because that docket is closed. Therefore, if you want your comments to be read, you should use the above link.
Because the analysis of many people has been on a rule that's only tangentially related to the rule-making at issue, much of what's been posted in this thread is 100% wrong. For instance, many people are saying that the rule would prohibit people from carrying spare batteries with them.
Not only can you continue to bring your electronics on the plane, you can bring spares for the devices as well, so long as you take the reasonable step of taping over the terminals.