The problem is that we have two laws in conflict: the original laws forming the EPA (among others) from the late 60's to early 70's, and then executive orders which seek to mitigate them. . . [S]he is supporting the original (Democrat, I think) version of the law, and ignoring the (Republican) executive order that applies.
The problem with this reasoning is that executive orders are not laws. Remember separation of powers. The legislature makes the law, the executive applies the law, and the courts interpret the law. The President has no ability to make law. Executive orders are basically binding policy statements issued to federal agencies. A judge doesn't owe an executive order deference if it conflicts with the statute.
they'd use both languages . . . So now you have null and void, aiding and abetting, assault and battery, etc...
That's what I understand as well, and that would explain "last will and testament," for example. But as it happens, null, void, aiding, abetting, assault, and battery are all from the French, and so they would appear to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
Since there is no monetary loss here, there was no fraud.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. At least under case law in my own state (NJ), the elements of fraud are:
"(1) [a] material misrepresentation of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by defendant of its falsity; (3) an intention that the other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and (5) resulting harm." I suppose I ought to know by now, but I'm not actually sure what state this all took place in. I imagine its provisions are similar there, though. It seems to me there was resulting harm here.
Does the machine allow "backing out" and switching to the other ballot, before voting has taken place? What does the screen say at that point? I suppose that if this were the case, the representative of the voting machine company might have done better damage control by pointing this out.
If the machine did allow switching to the other ballot, that would be a significant flaw in itself, because New Jersey does not have an open primary.
I guess I tend to put things into the context of what would the average company do if I came up with something novel on their dime. . . I work for company A and devise a really good process for something. That company can basically use that process or parts of that process in just about anything they want. They own it. Maybe I need to renegotiate my terms with the company I work for because I don't agree with the way they're using their property.
I suppose it's precisely because their employers would otherwise exploit their labor without compensation that the writers are unionized. It's really irrelevant what your employer or the average employer might do in the absence of collective bargaining.
On the subject of Islam, since their prophet was dead and gone by ~800 AD, well before photography, there are no pictures of him, only artistic representations.
Hear, hear. Regardless of all the talk about censorship, when there's really no reason to include a depiction of Muhammad, given that there's no reason to think the depiction has any relation to the historical person. But I think you've missed the reason why this is true. There are good contemporary likenesses of Augustus, say, who would predate Muhammad and even Jesus by a bit. But Jews interpreted the proscription of graven images very strictly at the time of Jesus, and Muhammad followed suit later on. So the people who would presumably have the most reason to record an image were in both cases exactly the people who be least likely to actually do so. I'm pretty confident that neither of them ever sat for a portrait or a sculpting, so any depictions of them have to be considered art and not knowledge.
The first time I heard the expression twenty years ago, "the exception that proves the rule", I thought it had the hallmarks of group think.
I think you've misunderstood the expression. The "proves" in the expression is the (perhaps somewhat outdated) second meaning in Merriam-Websters, "to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of." The point is that the exception ought to make you rethink the general applicability of the rule.
The real hilarity of it is, in the Netherlands, of all places, you can find tons of English speakers. Hell, the people who got the letter probably spoke decent English.
I was openly mocked for carrying around an English-Dutch phrase book in Amsterdam, and more than one person commented that they didn't think they published those any more, precisely because anyone a tourist is likely to run into will speak English just fine. But that doesn't even matter, since this was the Dutch Foreign Ministry. I think the odds that someone in the Dutch Foreign Ministry who deals with journalists not knowing English is really 0%. And the odds that the Israeli journalists didn't know some English is hovering pretty close to 0%. If the story isn't apocryphal, they must have done it for gee whiz factor.
Military censorship of all troops' correspondence is not exactly new.
All is the operative word. Censorship was so thorough during WWII that even phone calls between Roosevelt and Churchill were monitored by a military censor, who more than once cut them off when they were about to get into too much detail on a sensitive topic.
And, you have to admit that those London street cameras helped quite a bit in tracking down the London train and bus bombers.
OK, I'll admit that if you'll admit that that the (ab)use of the same CCTV images lead the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, a man whose only crime appears to be running for a train that had just entered the station.
Still, in reality, I hardly ever get postal spam; the rate is probably less than 1 unsolicited letter per month.
I'd like to know how you manage that. It's a good day that I have only 1 unsolicited letter. We get something like to 10 to 12 per day, and we have sacks of the stuff to bring out for recycling. On the up side, I'll never have to buy address labels again (nonprofits tend to include them as incentive to actually open the envelope). On the down side, I hardly ever send mail anymore, so I don't have anything to use the labels on.
On the other hand, if it were free to send junk mail, I think I'd be buried in the stuff, so your point is well taken.
You don't need to sort by date, because you can search by date. Search for:after:2006/3/1 before:2006/4/1 to find emails from last March, for example.
Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword.
on
The End for Vonage?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Vonage lived by the sword -- they themselves believed in patents.
I don't know about Vonage specifically, but it's unwarranted to assume that because they applied for patents that they believed in patents. Those patents might have been intended as (apparently inadequate) defensive patents.
The Moors in Spain categorized Christians as "infidels" and were therefore justified in burning them by the thousands.
I'm wondering what you're referring to here. The Moors where generally known for their tolerance. The Almohades, who took over rather late in the game, were admittedly known for forcible conversions. I suppose there's no such thing as a little forcible conversion, but I haven't heard of burning Christians by the thousands. I'd like to know more.
On the other hand, what you describe sounds an awful lot like the auto de fe, in which the Christians burned Moors, and of course Jews, once the tables had turned, in the numbers you mention. It strikes me that this may be an unfortunate inversion, given the way it's likely to feed into modern prejudice.
The vast majority of issues Slashdot cares about are handled either by the FCC, Congress, or the Justice Department. Only one of those is affected by the executive branch.
I'm curious as to which one you're including in the executive branch. I count two, the FCC and the Justice Department.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this reasoning is that executive orders are not laws. Remember separation of powers. The legislature makes the law, the executive applies the law, and the courts interpret the law. The President has no ability to make law. Executive orders are basically binding policy statements issued to federal agencies. A judge doesn't owe an executive order deference if it conflicts with the statute.
Sure, it sounds easy, but you can count on future scientists from the uninfected remnant of humanity to send agents back in time to attempt to thwart you.
Oh, well actually, he did get on the plane, but he didn't get past Maine, anyway.
Well, they definitely thwarted Cat Steven's nefarious plans, whatever they might have been.
That's what I understand as well, and that would explain "last will and testament," for example. But as it happens, null, void, aiding, abetting, assault, and battery are all from the French, and so they would appear to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
Since there is no monetary loss here, there was no fraud.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. At least under case law in my own state (NJ), the elements of fraud are: "(1) [a] material misrepresentation of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by defendant of its falsity; (3) an intention that the other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and (5) resulting harm." I suppose I ought to know by now, but I'm not actually sure what state this all took place in. I imagine its provisions are similar there, though. It seems to me there was resulting harm here.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
On the other hand, if it were free to send junk mail, I think I'd be buried in the stuff, so your point is well taken.
You don't need to sort by date, because you can search by date. Search for :after:2006/3/1 before:2006/4/1 to find emails from last March, for example.
On the other hand, what you describe sounds an awful lot like the auto de fe , in which the Christians burned Moors, and of course Jews, once the tables had turned, in the numbers you mention. It strikes me that this may be an unfortunate inversion, given the way it's likely to feed into modern prejudice.