...to create a party for the DC metro area. It's time to fly your geek flag. Hill staffers in particular must come prepared to explain the Series of Tubes.
Please identify one feminist, anywhere on the Internet or in books, who claims that non-consensual pregnancy and subsequent child support cannot ruin a man's life.
Hell, identify one feminist who thinks that man in your hypothetical wasn't raped.
This ain't feminists disadvantaging men. It's the patriarchy harming everyone. Being "weaker"/female means you get raped more often. Being "stronger"/male means that when something painful and traumatic happens to you, nobody cares. See how everybody loses, and then you and I have to dispute whether this is a zero-sum game to begin with?
Anyway, your last question--most crimes, including rape, in most states, have an intent element. Most states also don't let you get wasted and say, "Hey, I was blind drunk, I didn't intend to rape zir!" They say, "You intended to get drunk. We charge you with the consequences." It's crude but effective, for example, in cases where a drunk driver kills a car full of teenagers.
I'm a lawyer but not your lawyer. Your state probably has weird rules and exceptions to this, just like every other state.
I am a lawyer, and about a third of my cases are representing state employees, and about a third of those involve cases with a "clearly established" defense, though I practice mostly in the Fourth Circuit, not the Ninth.
The "clearly established" standard is a way for courts to keep these kinds of suits from dinging innocent state employees. Basically, not only does the employee have to violate someone's right, but it has to have been pretty much unreasonable for the employee to think ze wasn't violating that right. Here, in fact, the panel didn't even hold that the kid had a right not to have this stuff said to him. So this case won't be precedent for future cases to reach back and say, "Well, as of the time the Corbett opinion was issued, the right not to have a teacher make fun of your religious beliefs was clearly established."
There are several other possible doctrines for protecting an employee in such a situation, and they're all salutary.
Even if you say nothing to the officer who stops you, you can be arrested for any driving infraction, even one that isn't a jailable offense, when you're in your vehicle.
Once you're arrested, you can be searched sans warrant. Once you're arrested, your car can be impounded, and your entire vehicle can be "inventory" searched.
Your car can also be searched sans warrant based on probable cause of any criminal activity, even if you aren't arrested.
Better hope the courts decide your phone is more like a footlocker or a trunk, but good luck with that. The Supreme Court, over the course of about a dozen major Fourth Amendment decisions, has taken a dim view of your right to privacy while in your automobile.
I practice before the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria, and they do not allow anyone, including lawyers, to bring their smartphones in. It's routine to have to look at your calendar on the fly when the judge wants to schedule something, so you have to have it with you. The EDVA policy is the main reason I still maintain a paper calendar parallel to my computer calendar.
I understand and buy into the rationale behind not letting jurors bring them in, but the state courts in the area almost universally allow lawyers to bring their smartphones in, and it's such a bonus.
Subtext, symbolism, and metaphors are all creative work put in by one or more people. I have never understood the distinction between visual or musical symbolism (since you are satisfied by a trite movie with great visuals and awesome soundtrack) and the (thematic?) metaphors you are talking about. All are integral parts of the creative/artistic experience of watching a film.
Oh well, blame the feminists who never thought about the consequences of going to the police because of a condomless one night stand. You heartless bitches.
Is that what passes for "+5, Insightful" these days? Asking a woman who thinks she was raped not to come forward because of your politics is disgusting and terrifying. Your attitude exemplifies the reason that so many rapes go unreported. If she's not a liar or "regretting it the next morning," she's being politically insensitive.
Anyone who modded this Insightful should turn in their mod points or grow some humanity.
Thank the gods this got moderated up to 5, Insightful. The thread to this point has been filled with all sorts highly modded throwaway "psh, that's not rape, she just regretted it" bullshit which makes me embarrassed to be a Slashdot reader.
I can tell it's truly News for Nerds because I can barely understand what it's saying and it drops causal references to advanced mathematics--the stuff I only wish I'd had the fortitude to study in college.
I'm serious. This is exactly what I want from Slashdot.
Seriously, is this the sort of thing a website for scientifically minded humanists posts as a humor column?
This poor woman is evidently paranoid schizophrenic, and Samzenpus has taken it upon himself to make fun of HER (for being chemically delusional) instead of the legislature.
My "firesamzenpus" tag is half in jest, usually, but this post is just beyond the pale.
I agree with your overall point, but the United States is immune from lawsuits by its citizens unless it waives that immunity. It has done so, to a limited extent, via the Federal Tort Claims Act, found at 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). The Wikipedia article is a decent summary.
The next time you read "tort reform" FUD about how Everyone In America is abusing civil litigation and Plaintiffs' Attorneys Like Myself Are Abetting Them, consider the source. P.S. The source is liability-insurance companies.
Caveat: Your question was essentially time- management-themed. This answer is slightly off-topic: Assuming you just can't drag yourself out there to burn off calories, attack the problem from the other direction.
You're on slashdot. You must have at least some hacker mentality. Take the rules you're stuck with and work around them.
1. No time to exercise 2. Your body needs x calories per day to maintain its weight 3. If you eat more than x, you gain weight 4. If you eat less than x, you lose weight
Go to http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm and punch in your stats as "sedentary". The resulting number is your target. Keep a spreadsheet where you track all of the calories you consume. (Get this data from the label or from restaurant Web sites.) Consume fewer than x, or at least no more than x.
You'll be surprised how many calories there are in the foods you eat. Some macro tips:
1. Lots of soluble fiber--makes you feel fuller longer
2. Diet soda only--for obvious reasons
3. Reduce sugar overall--your body's insulin response to sugar can make you feel hungry even when you're not
4. Drink lots of water--makes you feel fuller longer
I have had several jobs with hours that left me too tired or busy to exercise. This method has always worked for me. There are also online calculators to determine how many calories you burned by exercising for x minutes, so factor that into your equilibrium point if you do manage to work out.
Regardless of whether "nerd" is derogatory, the thing that gives me the most heart about the fact that this question is being asked is that we seem to have gotten over our national obsession with having a president who is "one of us." Whether I agree with his policies, I am delighted that our current president did dramatically better in law school than I did, at a somewhat better law school that the one I went to. He engages intellectually with at least some of the issues he faces.
The EFF is going to run out of rope really fast. BMW v. Gore said it was about factors, but it was really about notice. Could BMW really expect such a dramatically large punitive-damages award? Maybe not, for the conduct alleged. Here, legally speaking, Jammie had notice: there was a statute putting her on notice of the fact that a jury could award these damages if it wanted.
Anyway, with the Court's current composition, arguing that BMW v. Gore should be expanded to statutory damages is a non-starter. That opinion barely made it through as it was. Just look at the dissents--Ginsberg, joined by Rehnquist? The Court's only gotten more government-friendly since then.
I don't know much adjudicatory criminal procedure; maybe the 8th Amendment is the way to go.
NYCL, as I understand it, the case in question doesn't even involve damages yet; it's basically a declaratory judgment action. So there's no money on the line. It's a pure question of law.
Here's what I'm thinking: Cablevision knows that users can time-shift, under SONY Betamax. So they know that if they sell users a TiVo, it's not secondary infringement.
If Cablevision is looking to provide this on-demand player as a value-added service without paying for it, being able to charge for that feature without having to lease out a bunch of TiVos saves them money; users will presumably pay the same amount regardless of whether there's another box in their entertainment center. So consolidating the service into a central repository is just free money for Cablevision.
The only question left is whether the consolidation itself is infringement. Maybe not, but why take the chance, given how litigious MPAA is?
As for the MPAA, they know they can get secondary infringement in certain situations, but probably not this one, given the end users' right to timeshift. But the MPAA may see this as an opportunity to expand "primary infringement" and secure their position, as digital timeshifting becomes more common, in future negotiations with the midstream providers.
If I'm either party, and I want the Supreme Court to decide an issue for me that I think I'll win, I'm going to work with the other side to waive the legal doctrines which best protect me. I don't want them to say "fair use" or "secondary infringement." Perhaps Cablevision wants to set up a decision granting more protection to content providers, just as the MPAA wants to set up a decision expanding the definition of primary infringement to include what Cablevision did.
With the Supremes taking so few cases, it makes sense to give them an extremely narrow legal issue, on a platter, freed, as much as possible, of its factual trappings.
I have done a regressive study of all the/. articles about the UK and have determined, to a scientific certainty, that every single UK citizen spends exactly 84% of his time dreaming up new ways to make the UK less free (and make me glad to live in the U.S.).
The "nuclear bomb" scene in Call of Duty 4 stands out, in my mind, as a moment in a video game (one which otherwise did a middling job of realism) that really wanted to approximate a real experience. You're flying along, la de da, "What the hell?" And suddenly, you're on the ground with no legs, dragging yourself toward nothing, and then you die.
That's war. Not chucking respawning grenades.
I was crestfallen when "Six Days in Fallujah" got canceled. If really intelligent people had been on the design team, and collected oral histories from the men and women who were actually there, and built the environments from actual photos (or even a field trip to those sites), SDiF could have been extremely good--no--it could have been transcendent. It was the perfect idea, just waiting for a near-perfect execution.
Slashdot Mirror
...to create a party for the DC metro area. It's time to fly your geek flag. Hill staffers in particular must come prepared to explain the Series of Tubes.
Please identify one feminist, anywhere on the Internet or in books, who claims that non-consensual pregnancy and subsequent child support cannot ruin a man's life.
Hell, identify one feminist who thinks that man in your hypothetical wasn't raped.
This ain't feminists disadvantaging men. It's the patriarchy harming everyone. Being "weaker"/female means you get raped more often. Being "stronger"/male means that when something painful and traumatic happens to you, nobody cares. See how everybody loses, and then you and I have to dispute whether this is a zero-sum game to begin with?
Anyway, your last question--most crimes, including rape, in most states, have an intent element. Most states also don't let you get wasted and say, "Hey, I was blind drunk, I didn't intend to rape zir!" They say, "You intended to get drunk. We charge you with the consequences." It's crude but effective, for example, in cases where a drunk driver kills a car full of teenagers.
I'm a lawyer but not your lawyer. Your state probably has weird rules and exceptions to this, just like every other state.
I am a lawyer, and about a third of my cases are representing state employees, and about a third of those involve cases with a "clearly established" defense, though I practice mostly in the Fourth Circuit, not the Ninth.
The "clearly established" standard is a way for courts to keep these kinds of suits from dinging innocent state employees. Basically, not only does the employee have to violate someone's right, but it has to have been pretty much unreasonable for the employee to think ze wasn't violating that right. Here, in fact, the panel didn't even hold that the kid had a right not to have this stuff said to him. So this case won't be precedent for future cases to reach back and say, "Well, as of the time the Corbett opinion was issued, the right not to have a teacher make fun of your religious beliefs was clearly established."
There are several other possible doctrines for protecting an employee in such a situation, and they're all salutary.
Also: I'm not your lawyer. Don't rely on that as legal advice.
Even if you say nothing to the officer who stops you, you can be arrested for any driving infraction, even one that isn't a jailable offense, when you're in your vehicle.
Once you're arrested, you can be searched sans warrant. Once you're arrested, your car can be impounded, and your entire vehicle can be "inventory" searched.
Your car can also be searched sans warrant based on probable cause of any criminal activity, even if you aren't arrested.
Better hope the courts decide your phone is more like a footlocker or a trunk, but good luck with that. The Supreme Court, over the course of about a dozen major Fourth Amendment decisions, has taken a dim view of your right to privacy while in your automobile.
IAAL.
I practice before the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria, and they do not allow anyone, including lawyers, to bring their smartphones in. It's routine to have to look at your calendar on the fly when the judge wants to schedule something, so you have to have it with you. The EDVA policy is the main reason I still maintain a paper calendar parallel to my computer calendar.
I understand and buy into the rationale behind not letting jurors bring them in, but the state courts in the area almost universally allow lawyers to bring their smartphones in, and it's such a bonus.
Excellent! Another rape joke, Now With Pedophilia! You keep it classy, Arthur Grumbine and mods.
Subtext, symbolism, and metaphors are all creative work put in by one or more people. I have never understood the distinction between visual or musical symbolism (since you are satisfied by a trite movie with great visuals and awesome soundtrack) and the (thematic?) metaphors you are talking about. All are integral parts of the creative/artistic experience of watching a film.
Oh well, blame the feminists who never thought about the consequences of going to the police because of a condomless one night stand. You heartless bitches.
Is that what passes for "+5, Insightful" these days? Asking a woman who thinks she was raped not to come forward because of your politics is disgusting and terrifying. Your attitude exemplifies the reason that so many rapes go unreported. If she's not a liar or "regretting it the next morning," she's being politically insensitive.
Anyone who modded this Insightful should turn in their mod points or grow some humanity.
Thank the gods this got moderated up to 5, Insightful. The thread to this point has been filled with all sorts highly modded throwaway "psh, that's not rape, she just regretted it" bullshit which makes me embarrassed to be a Slashdot reader.
I can tell it's truly News for Nerds because I can barely understand what it's saying and it drops causal references to advanced mathematics--the stuff I only wish I'd had the fortitude to study in college.
I'm serious. This is exactly what I want from Slashdot.
Maybe it's just your observation bias. Did you control for that in your highly complex subjective calculations?
The concept of "women's intuition" is from about 100 years ago. If you're going to be sexist, at least update your buzzwords.
This is an obvious cover-up for the development and storage of Arsenal Gear.
Seriously, is this the sort of thing a website for scientifically minded humanists posts as a humor column?
This poor woman is evidently paranoid schizophrenic, and Samzenpus has taken it upon himself to make fun of HER (for being chemically delusional) instead of the legislature.
My "firesamzenpus" tag is half in jest, usually, but this post is just beyond the pale.
Do you seriously mean to tell me that there are no important tech stories taking place today? Most of these articles are barely even chuckle-worthy.
I agree with your overall point, but the United States is immune from lawsuits by its citizens unless it waives that immunity. It has done so, to a limited extent, via the Federal Tort Claims Act, found at 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). The Wikipedia article is a decent summary.
The next time you read "tort reform" FUD about how Everyone In America is abusing civil litigation and Plaintiffs' Attorneys Like Myself Are Abetting Them, consider the source. P.S. The source is liability-insurance companies.
Caveat: Your question was essentially time- management-themed. This answer is slightly off-topic: Assuming you just can't drag yourself out there to burn off calories, attack the problem from the other direction.
You're on slashdot. You must have at least some hacker mentality. Take the rules you're stuck with and work around them.
1. No time to exercise
2. Your body needs x calories per day to maintain its weight
3. If you eat more than x, you gain weight
4. If you eat less than x, you lose weight
Go to http://walking.about.com/cs/calories/l/blcalcalc.htm and punch in your stats as "sedentary". The resulting number is your target. Keep a spreadsheet where you track all of the calories you consume. (Get this data from the label or from restaurant Web sites.) Consume fewer than x, or at least no more than x.
You'll be surprised how many calories there are in the foods you eat. Some macro tips:
1. Lots of soluble fiber--makes you feel fuller longer
2. Diet soda only--for obvious reasons
3. Reduce sugar overall--your body's insulin response to sugar can make you feel hungry even when you're not
4. Drink lots of water--makes you feel fuller longer
I have had several jobs with hours that left me too tired or busy to exercise. This method has always worked for me. There are also online calculators to determine how many calories you burned by exercising for x minutes, so factor that into your equilibrium point if you do manage to work out.
As an initial matter: Fire Samzenpus.
Regardless of whether "nerd" is derogatory, the thing that gives me the most heart about the fact that this question is being asked is that we seem to have gotten over our national obsession with having a president who is "one of us." Whether I agree with his policies, I am delighted that our current president did dramatically better in law school than I did, at a somewhat better law school that the one I went to. He engages intellectually with at least some of the issues he faces.
I am a lawyer.
The EFF is going to run out of rope really fast. BMW v. Gore said it was about factors, but it was really about notice. Could BMW really expect such a dramatically large punitive-damages award? Maybe not, for the conduct alleged. Here, legally speaking, Jammie had notice: there was a statute putting her on notice of the fact that a jury could award these damages if it wanted.
Anyway, with the Court's current composition, arguing that BMW v. Gore should be expanded to statutory damages is a non-starter. That opinion barely made it through as it was. Just look at the dissents--Ginsberg, joined by Rehnquist? The Court's only gotten more government-friendly since then.
I don't know much adjudicatory criminal procedure; maybe the 8th Amendment is the way to go.
NYCL, as I understand it, the case in question doesn't even involve damages yet; it's basically a declaratory judgment action. So there's no money on the line. It's a pure question of law.
Here's what I'm thinking: Cablevision knows that users can time-shift, under SONY Betamax. So they know that if they sell users a TiVo, it's not secondary infringement.
If Cablevision is looking to provide this on-demand player as a value-added service without paying for it, being able to charge for that feature without having to lease out a bunch of TiVos saves them money; users will presumably pay the same amount regardless of whether there's another box in their entertainment center. So consolidating the service into a central repository is just free money for Cablevision.
The only question left is whether the consolidation itself is infringement. Maybe not, but why take the chance, given how litigious MPAA is?
As for the MPAA, they know they can get secondary infringement in certain situations, but probably not this one, given the end users' right to timeshift. But the MPAA may see this as an opportunity to expand "primary infringement" and secure their position, as digital timeshifting becomes more common, in future negotiations with the midstream providers.
Irony, folks...irony.
If I'm either party, and I want the Supreme Court to decide an issue for me that I think I'll win, I'm going to work with the other side to waive the legal doctrines which best protect me. I don't want them to say "fair use" or "secondary infringement." Perhaps Cablevision wants to set up a decision granting more protection to content providers, just as the MPAA wants to set up a decision expanding the definition of primary infringement to include what Cablevision did.
With the Supremes taking so few cases, it makes sense to give them an extremely narrow legal issue, on a platter, freed, as much as possible, of its factual trappings.
I have done a regressive study of all the /. articles about the UK and have determined, to a scientific certainty, that every single UK citizen spends exactly 84% of his time dreaming up new ways to make the UK less free (and make me glad to live in the U.S.).
Spoiler alert.
The "nuclear bomb" scene in Call of Duty 4 stands out, in my mind, as a moment in a video game (one which otherwise did a middling job of realism) that really wanted to approximate a real experience. You're flying along, la de da, "What the hell?" And suddenly, you're on the ground with no legs, dragging yourself toward nothing, and then you die.
That's war. Not chucking respawning grenades.
I was crestfallen when "Six Days in Fallujah" got canceled. If really intelligent people had been on the design team, and collected oral histories from the men and women who were actually there, and built the environments from actual photos (or even a field trip to those sites), SDiF could have been extremely good--no--it could have been transcendent. It was the perfect idea, just waiting for a near-perfect execution.
And steal Hubble's pr0n!