Given the propensity of legislators/executives/courts to construe the language of the Constitution and amendments as broadly or narrowly as desired, I doubt that removing the Bill of Rights would make any significant difference. See the Commerce Clause and its construction since the 1930s for an example of extremely broad construction, and the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I for an extremely strict construction. Commerce can restrict what you grow in your garden for your own consumption. Necessary and Proper, despite being a literally broad clause, has been considered an insufficient ground for pretty much anything (unless combined with some other power).
For the Bill of Rights, the 9th amendment has generally been interpreted to convey no rights at all, while the 1st and 4th have been given a nebulous privacy component. Fun with courts!
TL;DR: The Constitution is very malleable to the whims of government, with or without the Bill of Rights.
Depends on the reasoning behind the final ruling. If all relevant law are found unconstitutional on their face, then the convictions should be reversible. If the final ruling uses weaker (weaseling) language, then it gets much murkier for those previously convicted.
That said, higher courts tend to use the weakest language they can, so I wouldn't hold my breath for a bunch of releases. Also, many of the convictions probably have other charges/etc connected, so it won't necessarily change anything for many people. For example, you have a 5 year sentence under this law running concurrently with a 5 year sentence for theft/robbery - you're still doing the 5 years (or whatever it takes to hit parole eligibility for the other offense(s) in IL).
Not to be an MS shill, but for Server 2012 R2 (no idea about vanilla 2012), I'd toss volume level deduplication and SMB 3.0 support out there as major features for many use cases. The savings on disk space I'm seeing from dedupe alone are worth thousands per year, just not enough thousands to justify dedupe capable hardware. The new features in SMB 3.0, particularly more graceful handling of disconnects and quasi-multipath support are worthwhile when both endpoints support it, though I can't put a dollar value on that just yet.
There are several other features that probably make the ridiculous GUI worth tolerating for many use cases, but those have been worth it for my backup repositories and file servers (particularly those that hold redirected folders).
That said, if 2008/R2 work well for your uses, don't fix it if it isn't broken (so long as it is supported).
You know what really makes the charm bar awesome? Remote Desktop to Windows Server 2012 (or Windows 8/8.1, I suppose). Move your cursor to the edge without moving it out of the remote desktop window. Ugh.
Ok, a few issues. First, there are *9* black robes in Washington. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court is and always has been empowered to hear controversies arising from the U.S. Constitution. The 4th amendment concerns in this case would be of that nature.
With respect to gay marriage, the Court is hearing challenges to DOMA (a federal law), and cases that determine whether states are in violation of the U.S. Constitution with their particular implementations of gay marriage bans.
Federal courts do not generally hear (or have the power to hear) things that do not involve federal law or the U.S. Constitution. If it's a state law or constitution that has nothing to do with federal law, the state courts will be the only ones to hear your case. (There are exceptions, but that's the short version.)
Yep, if there's one thing that was clear in the mid-1990s, it was how online marketing worked. (I just spent some time with archive.org - it was pretty amusing.)
You can get satellite broadband, though last I checked it was significantly more expensive than other broadband options (and with higher latency, but I'm sure you realize that). Again, I didn't go check, but it used to have slower speeds and relatively low data caps, as well.
I don't know how this would play out in the UK, but most US judges I've been before would have them back in court ASAP. It's true enough that they've put the required text in the required font on their site, and so they've technically complied with the letter of the order.
However, this isn't like an everyday contract where you get to find a loophole and laugh - it's a court order. Judges can and do ensure that parties abide by the letter *and* spirit of their rulings, and do not take kindly to those who skirt around their intent. (Unlike contracts, courts have a decent amount of latitude to clarify/modify their orders when things like this happen.)
I'm fairly certain that the judge did not intend for Apple to post the required text, then follow it up with excerpts from the court that appear to endorse Apple products - and I'm just as certain that Apple's lawyers knew that. Apple is seeing if they can get away with it, and I suppose the rest of us are, too.
From my perspective, the difference would be that virtual servers are far easier to provision/clone/move between providers than physical machines. Seizing a virtual server leaves the hosting provider out in the cold, not TPB. Setting up a new server just involves uploading/transferring an image/template rather than purchasing/installing a new box. It's easier, more versatile and resilient, and costs them far less when the police come knocking.
(That's not always true with 'cloud' computing, but it seems to be an excellent match for their needs. I'd agree that keeping physical load balancers decreases the effectiveness of the strategy, but virtualizing those could be a good next phase.)
Sort of like that, except that the parent had the money to replace the car, but decided to spend it elsewhere. Oh, and the parent evidently gave up their car without a sufficiently solid agreement with the neighbor about priority/etc. Oh, and they didn't just give up their car, they went out of their way to render it inoperable and shut down the entire auto industry.
If the idiot parents in your analogy didn't foresee the rather obvious scenario of a teenager doing something obnoxious, then car ownership may not be the only thing that's out of their league.
Maybe, but it's not likely to work out. Realistically you have until 2014 to repeal this, after that it's in effect and, for many political and practical reasons, it's too late to unring that bell.
So a plan like that would depend on Republicans winning both houses of Congress and the Presidency this November - a chance that's probably too big to take if you're a justice actively looking to stop this law.
Well see, we needed to boost revenues in rack hardware. With this, we can win either way! People buying new servers will need new racks, so $$$. People buying more racks who need to use some new and some normal equipment will have to buy adapters, so $$$.
I don't know whether this is really a net win on space vs. adding height to servers that need it in the current form factor, but hey, time to change things up, I suppose.
Actually, with a major athletics program, they are profit centers. They (football and men's basketball, generally) fund the rest of the sports programs. I can't speak for UF, but as a former student of another SEC school, I can tell you that the athletics program did not receive any funding from the university or government, they paid for the off-duty police officers required for basketball/football games, and funneled large sums back to the university in scholarship funds each year.
That's not to say that they didn't *try* to sneak things in from university funds every now and then, but that was pretty much universally squashed by taxpayers and faculty every time. The programs paid for their own facilities and upkeep.
Now, whether the current state of major collegiate athletics is appropriate to an academic environment is another discussion altogether, but in my experience the programs aren't draining any university funds, quite the opposite. The value of the programs in revenue generation and in driving admissions (schools with great athletics programs do see those numbers move with the success of the programs) is objectively there. It doesn't feel particularly clean, but it could be much worse, I suppose.
Eh, it's misleading for a couple reasons that lay people don't always realize. Think of it like this - it works in exactly the same way that news organizations make headlines out of people pleading 'not guilty'. That isn't news. Any attorney would advise their client to plead not guilty at the initial arraignment - you do the leg work and dealing on the case later, and maybe the plea gets changed in a deal. Either way, it's boilerplate to start with 'not guilty'.
This is an equally unremarkable headline. State and federal courts almost universally have local rules that permit judges to order mediation or just flatly require mediation. That's what's happening here. Apple and Samsung may or may not 'agree' in this case, but they'll be doing it anyway because that's how the system works. To sum up, there's no news here, civil procedure is just taking its natural course. The headline (and source article) are both somewhat misleading because there's no real news here, and the two companies aren't negotiating just because they think it's the best thing to do.
(Articles like this are one of my pet peeves as an attorney. I often wonder what the equivalents are for other professions...)
Don't know where you're living/what jurisdiction you mean, but you don't need anything above a JD to practice federal tax law, generally speaking. You can go get an LLM in tax if that's what you want, but that's mostly for academics or *really* heavy lifters in the field.
The idea would be to have *better* regulation of the Internet, which won't happen with the UN/ITU. Adding culture clashes to the present political clashes and putting countries that actively censor content at the table is just asking for trouble.
Don't know about the speed, the one I tried out seemed fine. However, the hardware didn't feel durable (and there were lots of reports of issues with the slider), they went with a Sprint exclusive deal that gave them a small initial market, and they had those commercials with the creepy woman speaking in a creepy zen/detached voice. Add that up and they did a pretty nice job of shooting themselves in the foot.
I'll agree with you about health insurance not being insurance, though that's priced into the market for medical care and prescription drugs. That said, I don't think this will have all the effects you assert.
The prescription contraceptive market is already priced to be affordable only for those with insurance, for the most part. Retail on those products is generally quite high, though obviously lower for the older versions with generics. As the health care mandate will require that all individuals be insured, though, it shouldn't drastically change pricing. If anything, price wil be mostly irrelevant for the vast majority of users.
See above for people with little/no money and no insurance. The coverage is available and incentivized. Aside from that, there's no indication that the current contraceptive provision/assistance programs will be discontinued.
With effects on female jobs, you're right in that if things unfold as you suggest, there will be more lawsuits. Hopefully that properly motivates employers to stay away from violating civil rights. I don't see why premiums would go any higher because of this...current plans almost universally include contraception coverage. I also don't understand why there would be fewer makers in the market - it's unlikely that the government plans will discriminate against specific drug companies.
With freedom, you have a valid point. I'm not sure the mandate is a good idea, especially as written. If done properly it could have reduced the inefficiency of current government health programs (Medicaid/Medicare/VA/etc), but as with many things, it got watered down to the point of only being controversial without solving many problems.
Well, there are a few problems with those suggestions (outside of the "they're just following the P3P standard" issue). A browser that shipped with an ad blocker enabled is unprofitable for the publisher and competitors. If it allows the publisher's ads and not everyone else's, they're going to end up in court. Actually, if it has the equivalent of ABP or other extensions included and on by default, they're probably going to end up in court. Targeting particular adversaries with privacy controls -- same problem. Even if they win all of the lawsuits, it's a major diplomatic failure for them with adversaries who may also be business partners.
That said, I'd like to see it happen, but unless some rich benefactor independently funds a browser, it's not likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the propensity of legislators/executives/courts to construe the language of the Constitution and amendments as broadly or narrowly as desired, I doubt that removing the Bill of Rights would make any significant difference. See the Commerce Clause and its construction since the 1930s for an example of extremely broad construction, and the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I for an extremely strict construction. Commerce can restrict what you grow in your garden for your own consumption. Necessary and Proper, despite being a literally broad clause, has been considered an insufficient ground for pretty much anything (unless combined with some other power).
For the Bill of Rights, the 9th amendment has generally been interpreted to convey no rights at all, while the 1st and 4th have been given a nebulous privacy component. Fun with courts!
TL;DR: The Constitution is very malleable to the whims of government, with or without the Bill of Rights.
Depends on the reasoning behind the final ruling. If all relevant law are found unconstitutional on their face, then the convictions should be reversible. If the final ruling uses weaker (weaseling) language, then it gets much murkier for those previously convicted.
That said, higher courts tend to use the weakest language they can, so I wouldn't hold my breath for a bunch of releases. Also, many of the convictions probably have other charges/etc connected, so it won't necessarily change anything for many people. For example, you have a 5 year sentence under this law running concurrently with a 5 year sentence for theft/robbery - you're still doing the 5 years (or whatever it takes to hit parole eligibility for the other offense(s) in IL).
Not to be an MS shill, but for Server 2012 R2 (no idea about vanilla 2012), I'd toss volume level deduplication and SMB 3.0 support out there as major features for many use cases. The savings on disk space I'm seeing from dedupe alone are worth thousands per year, just not enough thousands to justify dedupe capable hardware. The new features in SMB 3.0, particularly more graceful handling of disconnects and quasi-multipath support are worthwhile when both endpoints support it, though I can't put a dollar value on that just yet.
There are several other features that probably make the ridiculous GUI worth tolerating for many use cases, but those have been worth it for my backup repositories and file servers (particularly those that hold redirected folders).
That said, if 2008/R2 work well for your uses, don't fix it if it isn't broken (so long as it is supported).
You know what really makes the charm bar awesome? Remote Desktop to Windows Server 2012 (or Windows 8/8.1, I suppose). Move your cursor to the edge without moving it out of the remote desktop window. Ugh.
Ok, a few issues. First, there are *9* black robes in Washington. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court is and always has been empowered to hear controversies arising from the U.S. Constitution. The 4th amendment concerns in this case would be of that nature.
With respect to gay marriage, the Court is hearing challenges to DOMA (a federal law), and cases that determine whether states are in violation of the U.S. Constitution with their particular implementations of gay marriage bans.
Federal courts do not generally hear (or have the power to hear) things that do not involve federal law or the U.S. Constitution. If it's a state law or constitution that has nothing to do with federal law, the state courts will be the only ones to hear your case. (There are exceptions, but that's the short version.)
Just enjoy it while it's a discount they're offering. I seem to recall things going downhill in Minority Report.
Apparently you failed to account for the new touchscreen BSOD R&D costs. You can't actually touch it, but they'll fix that with SP1.
Yep, if there's one thing that was clear in the mid-1990s, it was how online marketing worked. (I just spent some time with archive.org - it was pretty amusing.)
You can get satellite broadband, though last I checked it was significantly more expensive than other broadband options (and with higher latency, but I'm sure you realize that). Again, I didn't go check, but it used to have slower speeds and relatively low data caps, as well.
I don't know how this would play out in the UK, but most US judges I've been before would have them back in court ASAP. It's true enough that they've put the required text in the required font on their site, and so they've technically complied with the letter of the order.
However, this isn't like an everyday contract where you get to find a loophole and laugh - it's a court order. Judges can and do ensure that parties abide by the letter *and* spirit of their rulings, and do not take kindly to those who skirt around their intent. (Unlike contracts, courts have a decent amount of latitude to clarify/modify their orders when things like this happen.)
I'm fairly certain that the judge did not intend for Apple to post the required text, then follow it up with excerpts from the court that appear to endorse Apple products - and I'm just as certain that Apple's lawyers knew that. Apple is seeing if they can get away with it, and I suppose the rest of us are, too.
IAAL, and I know exactly how the legal system would react. Ever imagine Wall Street bankers rolling in piles of money? Sort of like that...
From my perspective, the difference would be that virtual servers are far easier to provision/clone/move between providers than physical machines. Seizing a virtual server leaves the hosting provider out in the cold, not TPB. Setting up a new server just involves uploading/transferring an image/template rather than purchasing/installing a new box. It's easier, more versatile and resilient, and costs them far less when the police come knocking.
(That's not always true with 'cloud' computing, but it seems to be an excellent match for their needs. I'd agree that keeping physical load balancers decreases the effectiveness of the strategy, but virtualizing those could be a good next phase.)
Sort of like that, except that the parent had the money to replace the car, but decided to spend it elsewhere. Oh, and the parent evidently gave up their car without a sufficiently solid agreement with the neighbor about priority/etc. Oh, and they didn't just give up their car, they went out of their way to render it inoperable and shut down the entire auto industry.
If the idiot parents in your analogy didn't foresee the rather obvious scenario of a teenager doing something obnoxious, then car ownership may not be the only thing that's out of their league.
Hence bankruptcy.
Maybe, but it's not likely to work out. Realistically you have until 2014 to repeal this, after that it's in effect and, for many political and practical reasons, it's too late to unring that bell.
So a plan like that would depend on Republicans winning both houses of Congress and the Presidency this November - a chance that's probably too big to take if you're a justice actively looking to stop this law.
Well see, we needed to boost revenues in rack hardware. With this, we can win either way! People buying new servers will need new racks, so $$$. People buying more racks who need to use some new and some normal equipment will have to buy adapters, so $$$.
I don't know whether this is really a net win on space vs. adding height to servers that need it in the current form factor, but hey, time to change things up, I suppose.
Actually, with a major athletics program, they are profit centers. They (football and men's basketball, generally) fund the rest of the sports programs. I can't speak for UF, but as a former student of another SEC school, I can tell you that the athletics program did not receive any funding from the university or government, they paid for the off-duty police officers required for basketball/football games, and funneled large sums back to the university in scholarship funds each year.
That's not to say that they didn't *try* to sneak things in from university funds every now and then, but that was pretty much universally squashed by taxpayers and faculty every time. The programs paid for their own facilities and upkeep.
Now, whether the current state of major collegiate athletics is appropriate to an academic environment is another discussion altogether, but in my experience the programs aren't draining any university funds, quite the opposite. The value of the programs in revenue generation and in driving admissions (schools with great athletics programs do see those numbers move with the success of the programs) is objectively there. It doesn't feel particularly clean, but it could be much worse, I suppose.
Eh, it's misleading for a couple reasons that lay people don't always realize. Think of it like this - it works in exactly the same way that news organizations make headlines out of people pleading 'not guilty'. That isn't news. Any attorney would advise their client to plead not guilty at the initial arraignment - you do the leg work and dealing on the case later, and maybe the plea gets changed in a deal. Either way, it's boilerplate to start with 'not guilty'.
This is an equally unremarkable headline. State and federal courts almost universally have local rules that permit judges to order mediation or just flatly require mediation. That's what's happening here. Apple and Samsung may or may not 'agree' in this case, but they'll be doing it anyway because that's how the system works. To sum up, there's no news here, civil procedure is just taking its natural course. The headline (and source article) are both somewhat misleading because there's no real news here, and the two companies aren't negotiating just because they think it's the best thing to do.
(Articles like this are one of my pet peeves as an attorney. I often wonder what the equivalents are for other professions...)
Don't know where you're living/what jurisdiction you mean, but you don't need anything above a JD to practice federal tax law, generally speaking. You can go get an LLM in tax if that's what you want, but that's mostly for academics or *really* heavy lifters in the field.
The idea would be to have *better* regulation of the Internet, which won't happen with the UN/ITU. Adding culture clashes to the present political clashes and putting countries that actively censor content at the table is just asking for trouble.
Don't know about the speed, the one I tried out seemed fine. However, the hardware didn't feel durable (and there were lots of reports of issues with the slider), they went with a Sprint exclusive deal that gave them a small initial market, and they had those commercials with the creepy woman speaking in a creepy zen/detached voice. Add that up and they did a pretty nice job of shooting themselves in the foot.
I'll agree with you about health insurance not being insurance, though that's priced into the market for medical care and prescription drugs. That said, I don't think this will have all the effects you assert.
The prescription contraceptive market is already priced to be affordable only for those with insurance, for the most part. Retail on those products is generally quite high, though obviously lower for the older versions with generics. As the health care mandate will require that all individuals be insured, though, it shouldn't drastically change pricing. If anything, price wil be mostly irrelevant for the vast majority of users.
See above for people with little/no money and no insurance. The coverage is available and incentivized. Aside from that, there's no indication that the current contraceptive provision/assistance programs will be discontinued.
With effects on female jobs, you're right in that if things unfold as you suggest, there will be more lawsuits. Hopefully that properly motivates employers to stay away from violating civil rights. I don't see why premiums would go any higher because of this...current plans almost universally include contraception coverage. I also don't understand why there would be fewer makers in the market - it's unlikely that the government plans will discriminate against specific drug companies.
With freedom, you have a valid point. I'm not sure the mandate is a good idea, especially as written. If done properly it could have reduced the inefficiency of current government health programs (Medicaid/Medicare/VA/etc), but as with many things, it got watered down to the point of only being controversial without solving many problems.
Since all of those organizations will have good Catholics as employees, I'm sure the provision will have no actual effect...
(I actually have no dog in that fight, but I do find it slightly amusing to watch.)
They could also have just not sent P3P headers if they didn't intend to actually provide a valid one and comply with it...
Well, there are a few problems with those suggestions (outside of the "they're just following the P3P standard" issue). A browser that shipped with an ad blocker enabled is unprofitable for the publisher and competitors. If it allows the publisher's ads and not everyone else's, they're going to end up in court. Actually, if it has the equivalent of ABP or other extensions included and on by default, they're probably going to end up in court. Targeting particular adversaries with privacy controls -- same problem. Even if they win all of the lawsuits, it's a major diplomatic failure for them with adversaries who may also be business partners.
That said, I'd like to see it happen, but unless some rich benefactor independently funds a browser, it's not likely.