This is relevant because it has a potential for bias, and also because this guy did not tell the whole truth in pre-trial questioning, raising the possibility that he was trying to get on the jury to vindicate his legal philosophy on patents. If Samsung had known about the Seagate matter, they could have objected to his being seated on the jury.
Why do you assume immigrants must be illegal? The law should allow the amount of legal immigration we need, and the immigrants that will help our country grow. Immigration is vital to our economy now, and will become more so as the population ages.
Young, vital, driven immigrants are just the sort of people we need, yet nativist know-nothings act as if immigrants are a blight, not paying taxes or contributing anything to the economy. If we shut off immigration, as the xenophobic fringe demands, we will look like Japan soon, with an aging population and not enough young people to support them.
The USA was built by immigrants. It would be the height of folly to excessively limit immigration now when we most need it.
The S&L Crisis was caused by a large number of people knowingly committing fraud, so a large number of criminal prosecutions was warranted. The recent US financial crisis, in spite of what you appear to so fervently believe, was not caused by criminal bankers, but by foolish Federal housing policy.
In the USA, there is a high threshold for obtaining a criminal conviction, and prosecutors are chary of bringing a criminal case without substantial evidence. Civil cases are easier, and that's why these cases, only marginally supported by evidence, have been brought civilly. If the civil cases fail, how in the world do you think you could prove a criminal case?
The idea that Manning is covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act is ludicrous. Disclosures which are prohibited by law or by Executive Order do not qualify for protection. Section (b)(8) of 5 USC 2302 provides that a disclosure is protected:
...if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs...
Manning's disclosures were illegal and contrary to secrecy orders, so the Whistleblower Act is totally irrelevant.
Concluding that the suicide-watch procedures are unquestionably intentional torture for the purpose of future deterrence is jumping to conclusions. A military man being made to strip to his underwear at bedtime is not the same thing as thumbscrews and the bastinado. Believe what you like, but I am certain that Manning's military jailors do not want, under any circumstances, to be blamed for allowing him to commit suicide.
The real reason for pushback against the global warmist 'consensus' is that it is frankly both scientific and political. It starts with observations of global climate, and ends up with the undeniable and unquestionable conclusion that First-World governments must do whatever it takes to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in their countries. The entire chain of reasoning from observation to required government policy has been so sanctified that any one who questions or doubts even the tiniest aspect of it is labeled a "denier", implying that they are just as bad or worse than those who deny the Holucaust.
It's very puzzling that scientist's predictions of how an imperfectly-understood chaotic system will behave in the future, and recommendations for one particular policy approach to dealing with it, have achieved the inerrant status of Holy Writ, so that those who question any aspect of it must be burned at the stake.
For software patents the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy doesn't even apply, since monumental software innovation came before the court decisions that authorized software patents.
The problem is that no matter what the Palestinians do to attack Israel, it seems that the only acceptable "proportionate response" is sternly-worded diplomatic protest. It appears that it would be a war crime for Israel to make a military response to any Palestinian military attack, however deadly. Isn't international law wonderful?
While you are right that Google's operations are covered by copyright, Google indexing is done with the tacit permission of the websites indexed. Any website that wants to stop them need only set up a robots.txt file. Some in France are implying that Google has an obligation to copy French newspapers, and pay royalties for the copying. I can never see Google agreeing to this. If they had to, they would shut down Google News in France instead.
The problem is not forcing Google to index these papers, but forcing them to index and then forcing them to pay for the privilege. The French newspapers seem to be saying that Google listings are tremendously damaging to their business, and Google must therefore pay compensation. The newspapers seem also to be saying that this is very valuable damage, so valuable that Google must be forced to continue damaging them. Sounds a little inconsistent to me.
It's very simple: either Google listings are good for the newspapers, or they aren't. If the listings are not good for the newspapers, the newspapers can shut them off right now via robots.txt. If Google listings are good for the newspapers, then why are they demanding payment from Google and not vice versa?
There is already a middle way available. Any newspaper can tell Google: "We've blocked you from indexing us via our robots.txt file. Share some of your profits with us, we will unblock you and everyone wins." Google wants to win, so it would voluntarily accept any 'everyone-wins' proposal.
Of course, this might not be a situation where everyone wins, but one where Google loses. (Asserting that everyone wins does not make it so,) The people at Google are smart enough to evaluate this for themselves.
Just because Google has been staggeringly popilar, and therefore has a lot of money, does not mean that French newspapers are entitled to some of that money. Google is offering two choices: let Google index your site for free, or tell Google to leave you alone. Google is OK with either option. Why, pray tell, is Google obliged to index a site and pay for the privilege?
You seem to be saying that the Iranian regime can do whatever it likes against the interests of the West, and the West is morally bound to ignore that and do business with Iran whenever the Iranians want. Sovereign nations have the right to withhold trade however and whenever it suits their national interest. This is an parallel of the Iranian desire to control its own oil trade. (BTW, oil nationalization, while perhaps radical in the 1950's, is now old hat. Look elsewhere for your paranoid fantasies.)
All this hand-wringing about fracking is a mirage from the looney anti-fossil-fuel greens. There have never been any proven detrimental impacts from fracking when done with modern techniques. Fracking, our golden chance for energy independence, is being attacked as if these dangers were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, as opposed to lacking a shred of hard evidence behind them.
If the greens succeed in killing this opportunity to end our dependence on foreign oil, I hope they will be proud the next time we go to war to defend our oil lifeline.
Even if the land were bought by US business, those US businesses would look at the global market for Argentine beef and sell where it is most profitable.
And we have left wingers saying we need to blow up Wall Street. And no one cares, because lunatic ravings have always been with us and will always be with us; the difference these days is that the lunatics have a bigger megaphone available. The day you see left-wing or right-wing mobs murdering people in the USA is the day I will start being concerned in the USA. In Muslim countries, the mobs are murdering right now.
Actually, let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that if you and I write a book together, and publish it together, then the government can censor us because we have no right to speak collectively. Yours is an interesting view, but I don't think it's right.
The 'intangible legal entity' is a vehicle for citizens to act collectively. In forming the corporation, the citizens do not give up their right to speak individually, so why should they give up the right to speak collectively? If it's right to censor any citizens acting collectively, how can any speaker be safe on any level above the lone blogger or pamphleteer?
The entity is not a citizen, but it is a vehicle for citizens to act collectively. Why should the citizens not have the right to speak collectively in this way?
I'm afraid you are the one who is mixed up. By your reasoning, the New York Times Corporation has no right to publish, since it is a collective body. By your reasoning, it publishes only under sufferance of the government of the day, which is free to impose any type of censorship it desires. By your reasoning, if you and I form a partnership, the government could, without due process of law, confiscate our shared property at whim, since we have no 'rights' collectively. That is not the law, so your reasoning is faulty.
Contrary to what many leftist legal commentators assert, Citizens United did not invent rights of corporations, but build on a long line of precedent, including First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978. It is an incremental decision, rather than a revolutionary one.
Slashdot Mirror
This is relevant because it has a potential for bias, and also because this guy did not tell the whole truth in pre-trial questioning, raising the possibility that he was trying to get on the jury to vindicate his legal philosophy on patents. If Samsung had known about the Seagate matter, they could have objected to his being seated on the jury.
Why do you assume immigrants must be illegal? The law should allow the amount of legal immigration we need, and the immigrants that will help our country grow. Immigration is vital to our economy now, and will become more so as the population ages.
Young, vital, driven immigrants are just the sort of people we need, yet nativist know-nothings act as if immigrants are a blight, not paying taxes or contributing anything to the economy. If we shut off immigration, as the xenophobic fringe demands, we will look like Japan soon, with an aging population and not enough young people to support them.
The USA was built by immigrants. It would be the height of folly to excessively limit immigration now when we most need it.
The S&L Crisis was caused by a large number of people knowingly committing fraud, so a large number of criminal prosecutions was warranted. The recent US financial crisis, in spite of what you appear to so fervently believe, was not caused by criminal bankers, but by foolish Federal housing policy.
In the USA, there is a high threshold for obtaining a criminal conviction, and prosecutors are chary of bringing a criminal case without substantial evidence. Civil cases are easier, and that's why these cases, only marginally supported by evidence, have been brought civilly. If the civil cases fail, how in the world do you think you could prove a criminal case?
Manning's disclosures were illegal and contrary to secrecy orders, so the Whistleblower Act is totally irrelevant.
Where are the criminal prosecutions for the bankers that looted the economy.
There have been several such prosecutions. They have all failed to achieve convictions, probably because what the bankers did was not illegal.
Concluding that the suicide-watch procedures are unquestionably intentional torture for the purpose of future deterrence is jumping to conclusions. A military man being made to strip to his underwear at bedtime is not the same thing as thumbscrews and the bastinado. Believe what you like, but I am certain that Manning's military jailors do not want, under any circumstances, to be blamed for allowing him to commit suicide.
The real reason for pushback against the global warmist 'consensus' is that it is frankly both scientific and political. It starts with observations of global climate, and ends up with the undeniable and unquestionable conclusion that First-World governments must do whatever it takes to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in their countries. The entire chain of reasoning from observation to required government policy has been so sanctified that any one who questions or doubts even the tiniest aspect of it is labeled a "denier", implying that they are just as bad or worse than those who deny the Holucaust.
It's very puzzling that scientist's predictions of how an imperfectly-understood chaotic system will behave in the future, and recommendations for one particular policy approach to dealing with it, have achieved the inerrant status of Holy Writ, so that those who question any aspect of it must be burned at the stake.
For software patents the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy doesn't even apply, since monumental software innovation came before the court decisions that authorized software patents.
The problem is that no matter what the Palestinians do to attack Israel, it seems that the only acceptable "proportionate response" is sternly-worded diplomatic protest. It appears that it would be a war crime for Israel to make a military response to any Palestinian military attack, however deadly. Isn't international law wonderful?
While you are right that Google's operations are covered by copyright, Google indexing is done with the tacit permission of the websites indexed. Any website that wants to stop them need only set up a robots.txt file. Some in France are implying that Google has an obligation to copy French newspapers, and pay royalties for the copying. I can never see Google agreeing to this. If they had to, they would shut down Google News in France instead.
The problem is not forcing Google to index these papers, but forcing them to index and then forcing them to pay for the privilege. The French newspapers seem to be saying that Google listings are tremendously damaging to their business, and Google must therefore pay compensation. The newspapers seem also to be saying that this is very valuable damage, so valuable that Google must be forced to continue damaging them. Sounds a little inconsistent to me.
It's very simple: either Google listings are good for the newspapers, or they aren't. If the listings are not good for the newspapers, the newspapers can shut them off right now via robots.txt. If Google listings are good for the newspapers, then why are they demanding payment from Google and not vice versa?
There is already a middle way available. Any newspaper can tell Google: "We've blocked you from indexing us via our robots.txt file. Share some of your profits with us, we will unblock you and everyone wins." Google wants to win, so it would voluntarily accept any 'everyone-wins' proposal.
Of course, this might not be a situation where everyone wins, but one where Google loses. (Asserting that everyone wins does not make it so,) The people at Google are smart enough to evaluate this for themselves.
Just because Google has been staggeringly popilar, and therefore has a lot of money, does not mean that French newspapers are entitled to some of that money. Google is offering two choices: let Google index your site for free, or tell Google to leave you alone. Google is OK with either option. Why, pray tell, is Google obliged to index a site and pay for the privilege?
You seem to be saying that the Iranian regime can do whatever it likes against the interests of the West, and the West is morally bound to ignore that and do business with Iran whenever the Iranians want. Sovereign nations have the right to withhold trade however and whenever it suits their national interest. This is an parallel of the Iranian desire to control its own oil trade. (BTW, oil nationalization, while perhaps radical in the 1950's, is now old hat. Look elsewhere for your paranoid fantasies.)
All this hand-wringing about fracking is a mirage from the looney anti-fossil-fuel greens. There have never been any proven detrimental impacts from fracking when done with modern techniques. Fracking, our golden chance for energy independence, is being attacked as if these dangers were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, as opposed to lacking a shred of hard evidence behind them.
If the greens succeed in killing this opportunity to end our dependence on foreign oil, I hope they will be proud the next time we go to war to defend our oil lifeline.
Even if the land were bought by US business, those US businesses would look at the global market for Argentine beef and sell where it is most profitable.
And we have left wingers saying we need to blow up Wall Street. And no one cares, because lunatic ravings have always been with us and will always be with us; the difference these days is that the lunatics have a bigger megaphone available. The day you see left-wing or right-wing mobs murdering people in the USA is the day I will start being concerned in the USA. In Muslim countries, the mobs are murdering right now.
But freedom of speech does?
Actually, let me see if I understand what you are saying. You are saying that if you and I write a book together, and publish it together, then the government can censor us because we have no right to speak collectively. Yours is an interesting view, but I don't think it's right.
Someone better tell the New York Times...
I'm sure that you do not view yourself as 'leftist'. The New York Times views Obama as a 'Center-Right' president. To each his own.
The 'intangible legal entity' is a vehicle for citizens to act collectively. In forming the corporation, the citizens do not give up their right to speak individually, so why should they give up the right to speak collectively? If it's right to censor any citizens acting collectively, how can any speaker be safe on any level above the lone blogger or pamphleteer?
The entity is not a citizen, but it is a vehicle for citizens to act collectively. Why should the citizens not have the right to speak collectively in this way?
I'm afraid you are the one who is mixed up. By your reasoning, the New York Times Corporation has no right to publish, since it is a collective body. By your reasoning, it publishes only under sufferance of the government of the day, which is free to impose any type of censorship it desires. By your reasoning, if you and I form a partnership, the government could, without due process of law, confiscate our shared property at whim, since we have no 'rights' collectively. That is not the law, so your reasoning is faulty.
Contrary to what many leftist legal commentators assert, Citizens United did not invent rights of corporations, but build on a long line of precedent, including First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978. It is an incremental decision, rather than a revolutionary one.