They absolutely might have legitimate disagreements over land ownership. I don't have a problem with that going to courts. Two centuries ago we refused to honor native american ownership claims under the argument that, basically, while they recognized it was really, really unfair, the "courts of the conqueror" can't undo the conquering. But Hawaii was a different case and there would be more interesting land ownership claims, it is more recent and there are more detailed records of land transactions.
I do have a problem with the preferred status we give to religions of whatever culture, because we're making a choice as a society to subsidize nonsense. If we're going to do it, we should make it part of arts programs, because it's fiction.
I do have a problem with someone who claims to care about science saying that studying the universe doesn't matter because we're looking too far back in time for it to be relevant, and that their right to their favorite fiction is more important than somebody else's right to build a telescope.
Another poster was referring to the "corruption" in Hawaii, but a brief read of the link above would suggest that US financial interests have been corrupting Hawaii for a long time.
Yes, financial interests from US Citizens and Corporations are used to bribe the corrupt people. It doesn't excuse the people receiving or asking for the bribes from corruption.
If you file a set of building plans on hawaii, chances are they'll be rejected regardless of whether there's anything wrong unless you bribe the right guy, because you forgot to pay the bribe.
If you are on the list to receive a water meter in Hawaii, chances are you will languish there for a very long time as newcomers who bribe the right guy at the water department get water meters ahead of you.
That doesn't mean Hawaiians are bad people--there are some *great* Hawaiians whom I'd be happy to work with or share a beer with any day. But they do have a real problem with corruption in the government.
There are other really corrupt places in the United States. I don't know if you're familiar with the process of building a building in New York City, for example. It involves hiring people called "expediters" who know who to bribe and do the bribing so that the rich owner or developer does not get his hands dirty. Every few decades a crop of them will be arrested and fined and the DA will be shocked to discover the breadth of the widespread bribery and blatant disregard for the law.
Yeah, my first thought when reading this story was that whoever was building that observatory didn't know that any building project in Hawaii has to start with a big bribe to the natives.
Probably to the building inspector usually, but to someone claiming to represent native interests for big projects.
Right,. English combines the melody of German pronunciation and the ease of French grammar with the simplicity of Latin logic. A beautiful language, indeed.
Exactly so.
English can be a beautiful language when used by a master or a wise fool. It can equally be a terrible language when used by a proclaimed master or a person who thinks himself wise.
English will be replaced like Latin was. It will just take a while. The elite just stopped learning Latin, for the most part, a few decades ago. They existed side-by-side for a long time.
What could be more honoring, holy and sacred than a telescope peering out into universe?
Doing it while paying a suitably large bribe and paying Hawaiians. Hawaii is one of the more corrupt places in the country, and there's a lot of anti-white racism.
Although in this case it may just be an anti-science woman who doesn't conceive of herself of anti-science using her religion to justify her not wanting change to the environment. Like a Wiccan fighting your attempt to sell a public park. It's hard to tell without being involved with the local politics. So long as we give religion an elevated importance in our society, this is the crap we have to deal with.
"The irony is, backward looking is a part of the astronomy paradox, in that the farther out into space we look the further back in time we are looking, so making bigger telescopes to see farther in time, means we are moving farther and farther away from modern relevancy, actually."
Actually, this would be an interesting case to bring. The only reason I can think of not to is concern about a defamation lawsuit from the patent troll.
Racketeering -- "A pattern of illegal activity carried out as part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled by those who are engaged in the illegal activity".
That's the legal def. according to the internet. The RICO statute has a much more specific definition that it would take time to wade through and try to apply. I'm not sure offhand how they did it in this case.
In other words, MS made an excellent business move that saves the money and doesn't cost anyone anything.
Exactly. MS went "We're ALREADY producing an adapter AND we spent time and development dollars to make it so that anyone who already has a Kinect for their Xbox won't have to buy a new one to play or work on the dev side. Let's save the time and money of producing a second physical product that could be better spent on new products (like Hololens) or given back to shareholders."
What's the difference from a development engineering POV? A label on the front?
Spinning it as somehow a loss for MS is just ignorance. It's about economy of scale, pure and simple.
I will never understand the fascination with books. Since I was 15, I have read maybe 3-5 books outside of required school reading and I seem to be more intelligent and more accomplished than most.
The book readers tend to be the ones going nowhere because they're too busy reading about it, versus people like me who are actually doing things and may end up writing books about our experiences later - to profit off you book readers.
15 is a little older (but not too old) as compared to the age range I'm thinking about. Books let kids build vocabulary, think about things much more complex than they see in movies, and use their creativity to subconsciously add hundreds of details not on the page. It helps them learn to think without everything being spoon-fed to them.
Experiences "actually doing things," as you put it, is also incredibly important. I would go a step further and say that it's important that kids who grow up in one school or community get *out* of the community and maybe off their island for large chunks of the summer.
We live in the city so I'm going to dump our kids at my parents over the summer, country style. The kids will get to roam around freely in fields, forests, lakes, watch the stars in the night and all of it.
This is absolutely the right thing to do for younger kids. Do that plus take away most internet access and game consoles and make sure they're surrounded by books. They will play and read all summer long without much direction and learn more from it than we can remember not knowing.
There is overwhelming evidence that the "trafficking" narrative is agitprop specifically designed to trigger moral outrage. Those who spread the meme and those who believe it are the actual victims here.
Suggestion: talk to some trafficking victims. Read their stories. Watch Tricked on netflix or any of a dozen trafficking documentaries.
Yes, the methodology by which the statistics are gathered is suspect. That's because there isn't a gallup poll; it's a criminal activity and people don't answer the phone and say "Yes, I traffic in women."
Yes, there are people who just decide to go into prostitution for economic reasons and are psychologically healthy about it. They of course defend their profession from statistics that show a lot of young women are not voluntarily in the trade, and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.
Now go out to one of the cops who is actually properly trained in dealing with human trafficking (some of the big cities have them) and ask what they see on the street. More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.
It's a complex issue, and people sometimes overstate their case statistically. But it is very real.
Honestly, this whole thread feels like I've stepped into a man-cave of a 1960s summer camp.
Unless you have some well researched data pointing to an epidemic of kids offing themselves, clearly caused by someone they were dumb enough to let into their pants later posting a photo of their wee-wee without permission.
You make an interesting point about the number of suicides in that age group--the data you point to is inconsistent with what I learned in Developmental Psychology not too many years ago, but interesting.
But you are also victim-blaming. The AC next-door is saying she loved the attention and had it coming. These are positions overwhelmingly held by men trying to rationalize the rape of women.
You even realize this, and rationalize it by saying you're just rejecting a generalization from anecdote to generality:
To suggest that there is an epidemic of pixel-related suicides is a vile and dishonest setup of a straw man. So is implying blame of "attacking a victim" on anyone saying otherwise.
Keep in mind that revenge porn can include recordings that were not made consensually in the first place.
Also, you have a huge number of girls in this country who are trafficked. Someone who has Stockholm Syndrome may give their "consent," but you should still be able to prosecute the pimp for making videos of them knowing they were not free to refuse, and to take the video down.
And even if it were true that she did something dumb and that she loved the attention from her boyfriend, would that make it all right to share that with the world, or brag to the two hundred people she sees every day about that time you videotaped her? No, you would deserve to have the shit kicked out of you by her friends. And that's the kind of thing we should criminalize to discourage people from doing it, because not everybody has friends who will kick the shit out of you. It doesn't have to be a felony, but I think it should be as serious as misdemeanor assault.
There is no such thing as a "binding precedent", just as there is no such way to make a un-unprecedented. Something has either preceded or proceded. Declaring public records and rulings as unpublished is about as whacko-liberal as you get. If you actually live within the 9th ditrict, this probably suits you just fine, but you double-speaking OJ lovers are stewing in your own mess.
FYI, it has nothing to do with liberal v. conservative. "Published" just means "published in the official reporter." Almost all of them are published in the ordinary sense of the word "published."
It has to do with judges either being risk-averse or being pressed for time, or both. You don't have to edit an opinion as thoroughly or be as careful about the implications how you decide the case will have for future cases if future cases won't be decided based on how you decide your case. It also becomes less likely that you will be overturned, and no judge likes to be overturned.
Congress has specifically excluded a law or area from being reviewable by them. (Congress has a Constitutionally granted power to do this, with some limitations. It rarely does.)
Can you expand on this? I was pretty sure the only things SCOTUS couldn't review (i.e. they deny themselves the power to review) were Political Question situations and core functions of the other branches, like Congress' internal rulemaking, executive power to conduct foreign relations and make combat decisions, etc.
I was not aware of a constitutional grant of authority for Congress to pass certain laws that were unreviewable by their own say so.
Article III, Section 2 of the constitution specifically provides that "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
In practice, both the Supreme Court's power to strike down a law and the Congress's power to make laws unreviewable are rarely used, but serve as a kind of latent check on the authority of the other--the threat or possibility of it will sometimes reign in either branch of government from doing what it otherwise would do.
From Wikipedia, recent examples of jurisdiction stripping include the following:
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (inter alia, stripped the federal judiciary of its jurisdiction to review certain Immigration and Naturalization Service decisions),
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (restricting the remedies available to prison inmates),
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (limiting the number of habeas corpus petitions available to prison inmates),
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, ruled an unconstitutional denial of the right of habeas corpus pursuant to the Suspension clause. Boumediene v. Bush.
There have also been hundreds of unsuccessful bills in Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction.
Enh... where I'm hesitating here is that the 9th has a reputation as the most overturned court in the nation, and that may have a bearing on the argument also. (Although, IANAL, I believe if a lower decision is upheld, as in this case, it can't be sent to the supreme court, so they can't be overturned here.)
No; the Supreme Court can generally hear cases from Circuit Courts of Appeals or State Supreme Courts (on Federal or Constitutional issues) regardless of which way the case went. The only obvious exceptions are where they lack jurisdiction because there is no genuine "case or controversy" as required by the Constitution, or where Congress has specifically excluded a law or area from being reviewable by them. (Congress has a Constitutionally granted power to do this, with some limitations. It rarely does.)
Ninth Circuit unpublished cases issued after 2006 can be cited to. They are not binding precedent, so a court doesn't *have* to follow them and you don't want to cite to them if you don't have to, but they do have a small but important persuasive role where the facts are very similar to a new case.
I think we were fools to ever trust China in the first place. Now look at how indebted the US is to China. We are just as weak to China as we are to Iran. No leverage anymore because we have basically sold out in order to obtain goods at a better price and US companies can make bigger profits. Google certainly should be praised for its action, but let's also realize how China is slowing killing off any Western connections.
Um... no. China is a much, much, much bigger threat. Going to war with Iran would be like going to war with Maryland.
Funny. The Russians seem to have your backs to the wall over the Ukraine...
Not really. We're willing to go to war over some things and not others. Ukraine was serious in the diplomatic community but its ties to the US population are relatively small. Striking a NATO country or certain NATO allies would get the Americans involved in a hurry.
There have been times in the past when America has not gone in, when we know from evidence that came out after the fact that Russia would have backed down if we had. Going into the western part might well have worked here, might have started a major war, or might have gotten us stuck there for ten years while our budget is not in the greatest shape to begin with--it could have severely impacted our readiness to carry on other wars if they become necessary. With Iraq and Afghanistan fresh in our minds, somebody made a call they didn't want to get mired in it. The Russian attack into Ukraine sucks, but it's not a line in the sand for us.
Invade Germany or Poland and you'll see a much bigger response, from the United States and Europe.
Foreigners, on the other hand, have no such agreement, and therefore it's ridiculous to charge them. What's next, Saudi Arabia charges me for having a beer tonight? North Korea charges me for criticizing their regime? Should I serious have to look up every single country's law before I do something, just to make sure I'm not breaking some obscure country's law?
North Korea may not be able to arrest you, but they sure as hell can block your IP and wire transfers into and out of North Korea.
"not a big deal" is the last millennium's "no problem".
It's actually not a big deal.
Seriously, black holes are just a source of gravity. You can orbit around one just like you'd orbit around a star or planet. Sure, if you fall too far into the gravity well you're kinda screwed, but personally I'd be concerned about trying to get off the surface of the sun, too.
Sci-fi writers should have some obligation to try to be a little sciency. Otherwise, why not just call them "Space Dragons?"
Not much different than what is currently offered through Home Depot (except made your credit card number won't be hacked).
Ratings. Uber has totally overthrown the cab industry because of ratings. Drivers are generally good because they have to maintain 4.7 out of 5 on a customer rating to stay in good standing with uber. Now think how many bad contractors there are.
A reliable third-party rating system gives you at least a minimum amount of accountability.
There is a wide range of mailbox types in the US. A mailbox without a lock is common on houses, although apartment buildings tend to have locks on individual mailboxes, generally within a secure vestibule or foyer.
Some buildings have mail slots in or beside the front door that go into a secure area.
Whether the postal service leaves packages depends on how good they consider the area to be. If they worry someone is likely to take the package, some post offices won't leave one unless someone is home.
But you also have theft from conventional municipal mailboxes for sending mail. Criminals hack the mechanics and steal checks, for example, and then alter them to be in their name. A neighbor had one re-written to "Angel Batista," a character from the television show Dexter.
to control their own image, so they don't need to control the campaign. If patrons are happy, they'll do the advertising for them.
This. "Word-of-mouth" is the best single way to advertise your product. Depending on your consumer base and any politics around your brand, a twitter campaign should be fine. You can't control it, but if you're a good company and you aren't dealing with a lot of jerks, it will also be a positive one.
Woodstock stove company, for example, is a very reputable company that makes soapstone and cast iron stoves. They would probably do well on twitter, even though they might get some flame wars from people who are really into other brands of stoves.
I had to go through jury selection a few months back for a capital case, going through three or four rounds of appearances and interviews. Part of what struck me about the experience is how incredibly poor the paperwork was. They gave us number cards when there were 250+ people to go through in my group, they were all handwritten even though the numbers corresponded with the computer-generated numbers we were assigned when the original mailing for service was sent. Forms and questionnaires looked like they were generated in Clarisworks by first-time users in elementary school. Nothing had letterhead, nothing had any sort of official feel.
Your story about no letterhead and using fax machines is totally believable to me, and I'm amazed that it isn't abused more often.
Courts have no money for electronic upgrades, and when they have the money they have to fight a bureaucracy to get them. Seattle is still using DOS-based systems.
Slashdot Mirror
They absolutely might have legitimate disagreements over land ownership. I don't have a problem with that going to courts. Two centuries ago we refused to honor native american ownership claims under the argument that, basically, while they recognized it was really, really unfair, the "courts of the conqueror" can't undo the conquering. But Hawaii was a different case and there would be more interesting land ownership claims, it is more recent and there are more detailed records of land transactions.
I do have a problem with the preferred status we give to religions of whatever culture, because we're making a choice as a society to subsidize nonsense. If we're going to do it, we should make it part of arts programs, because it's fiction.
I do have a problem with someone who claims to care about science saying that studying the universe doesn't matter because we're looking too far back in time for it to be relevant, and that their right to their favorite fiction is more important than somebody else's right to build a telescope.
Another poster was referring to the "corruption" in Hawaii, but a brief read of the link above would suggest that US financial interests have been corrupting Hawaii for a long time.
Yes, financial interests from US Citizens and Corporations are used to bribe the corrupt people. It doesn't excuse the people receiving or asking for the bribes from corruption.
If you file a set of building plans on hawaii, chances are they'll be rejected regardless of whether there's anything wrong unless you bribe the right guy, because you forgot to pay the bribe.
If you are on the list to receive a water meter in Hawaii, chances are you will languish there for a very long time as newcomers who bribe the right guy at the water department get water meters ahead of you.
That doesn't mean Hawaiians are bad people--there are some *great* Hawaiians whom I'd be happy to work with or share a beer with any day. But they do have a real problem with corruption in the government.
There are other really corrupt places in the United States. I don't know if you're familiar with the process of building a building in New York City, for example. It involves hiring people called "expediters" who know who to bribe and do the bribing so that the rich owner or developer does not get his hands dirty. Every few decades a crop of them will be arrested and fined and the DA will be shocked to discover the breadth of the widespread bribery and blatant disregard for the law.
Yeah, my first thought when reading this story was that whoever was building that observatory didn't know that any building project in Hawaii has to start with a big bribe to the natives.
Probably to the building inspector usually, but to someone claiming to represent native interests for big projects.
Right,. English combines the melody of German pronunciation and the ease of French grammar with the simplicity of Latin logic. A beautiful language, indeed.
Exactly so.
English can be a beautiful language when used by a master or a wise fool. It can equally be a terrible language when used by a proclaimed master or a person who thinks himself wise.
English will be replaced like Latin was. It will just take a while. The elite just stopped learning Latin, for the most part, a few decades ago. They existed side-by-side for a long time.
What could be more honoring, holy and sacred than a telescope peering out into universe?
Doing it while paying a suitably large bribe and paying Hawaiians. Hawaii is one of the more corrupt places in the country, and there's a lot of anti-white racism.
Although in this case it may just be an anti-science woman who doesn't conceive of herself of anti-science using her religion to justify her not wanting change to the environment. Like a Wiccan fighting your attempt to sell a public park. It's hard to tell without being involved with the local politics. So long as we give religion an elevated importance in our society, this is the crap we have to deal with.
"The irony is, backward looking is a part of the astronomy paradox, in that the farther out into space we look the further back in time we are looking, so making bigger telescopes to see farther in time, means we are moving farther and farther away from modern relevancy, actually."
http://kahea.org/blog/mk-vigne...
That was true with first generation hardware; I'm not sure of the extent to which it's true for the current generation.
Actually, this would be an interesting case to bring. The only reason I can think of not to is concern about a defamation lawsuit from the patent troll.
Racketeering -- "A pattern of illegal activity carried out as part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled by those who are engaged in the illegal activity".
That's the legal def. according to the internet. The RICO statute has a much more specific definition that it would take time to wade through and try to apply. I'm not sure offhand how they did it in this case.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
In other words, MS made an excellent business move that saves the money and doesn't cost anyone anything.
Exactly. MS went "We're ALREADY producing an adapter AND we spent time and development dollars to make it so that anyone who already has a Kinect for their Xbox won't have to buy a new one to play or work on the dev side. Let's save the time and money of producing a second physical product that could be better spent on new products (like Hololens) or given back to shareholders."
What's the difference from a development engineering POV? A label on the front?
Spinning it as somehow a loss for MS is just ignorance. It's about economy of scale, pure and simple.
I will never understand the fascination with books. Since I was 15, I have read maybe 3-5 books outside of required school reading and I seem to be more intelligent and more accomplished than most.
The book readers tend to be the ones going nowhere because they're too busy reading about it, versus people like me who are actually doing things and may end up writing books about our experiences later - to profit off you book readers.
15 is a little older (but not too old) as compared to the age range I'm thinking about. Books let kids build vocabulary, think about things much more complex than they see in movies, and use their creativity to subconsciously add hundreds of details not on the page. It helps them learn to think without everything being spoon-fed to them.
Experiences "actually doing things," as you put it, is also incredibly important. I would go a step further and say that it's important that kids who grow up in one school or community get *out* of the community and maybe off their island for large chunks of the summer.
We live in the city so I'm going to dump our kids at my parents over the summer, country style. The kids will get to roam around freely in fields, forests, lakes, watch the stars in the night and all of it.
This is absolutely the right thing to do for younger kids. Do that plus take away most internet access and game consoles and make sure they're surrounded by books. They will play and read all summer long without much direction and learn more from it than we can remember not knowing.
There is overwhelming evidence that the "trafficking" narrative is agitprop specifically designed to trigger moral outrage. Those who spread the meme and those who believe it are the actual victims here.
Suggestion: talk to some trafficking victims. Read their stories. Watch Tricked on netflix or any of a dozen trafficking documentaries.
Yes, the methodology by which the statistics are gathered is suspect. That's because there isn't a gallup poll; it's a criminal activity and people don't answer the phone and say "Yes, I traffic in women."
Yes, there are people who just decide to go into prostitution for economic reasons and are psychologically healthy about it. They of course defend their profession from statistics that show a lot of young women are not voluntarily in the trade, and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.
Now go out to one of the cops who is actually properly trained in dealing with human trafficking (some of the big cities have them) and ask what they see on the street. More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.
It's a complex issue, and people sometimes overstate their case statistically. But it is very real.
Honestly, this whole thread feels like I've stepped into a man-cave of a 1960s summer camp.
Unless you have some well researched data pointing to an epidemic of kids offing themselves, clearly caused by someone they were dumb enough to let into their pants later posting a photo of their wee-wee without permission.
You make an interesting point about the number of suicides in that age group--the data you point to is inconsistent with what I learned in Developmental Psychology not too many years ago, but interesting.
But you are also victim-blaming. The AC next-door is saying she loved the attention and had it coming. These are positions overwhelmingly held by men trying to rationalize the rape of women.
You even realize this, and rationalize it by saying you're just rejecting a generalization from anecdote to generality:
To suggest that there is an epidemic of pixel-related suicides is a vile and dishonest setup of a straw man.
So is implying blame of "attacking a victim" on anyone saying otherwise.
Keep in mind that revenge porn can include recordings that were not made consensually in the first place.
Also, you have a huge number of girls in this country who are trafficked. Someone who has Stockholm Syndrome may give their "consent," but you should still be able to prosecute the pimp for making videos of them knowing they were not free to refuse, and to take the video down.
And even if it were true that she did something dumb and that she loved the attention from her boyfriend, would that make it all right to share that with the world, or brag to the two hundred people she sees every day about that time you videotaped her? No, you would deserve to have the shit kicked out of you by her friends. And that's the kind of thing we should criminalize to discourage people from doing it, because not everybody has friends who will kick the shit out of you. It doesn't have to be a felony, but I think it should be as serious as misdemeanor assault.
There is no such thing as a "binding precedent", just as there is no such way to make a un-unprecedented. Something has either preceded or proceded. Declaring public records and rulings as unpublished is about as whacko-liberal as you get. If you actually live within the 9th ditrict, this probably suits you just fine, but you double-speaking OJ lovers are stewing in your own mess.
FYI, it has nothing to do with liberal v. conservative. "Published" just means "published in the official reporter." Almost all of them are published in the ordinary sense of the word "published."
It has to do with judges either being risk-averse or being pressed for time, or both. You don't have to edit an opinion as thoroughly or be as careful about the implications how you decide the case will have for future cases if future cases won't be decided based on how you decide your case. It also becomes less likely that you will be overturned, and no judge likes to be overturned.
Congress has specifically excluded a law or area from being reviewable by them. (Congress has a Constitutionally granted power to do this, with some limitations. It rarely does.)
Can you expand on this? I was pretty sure the only things SCOTUS couldn't review (i.e. they deny themselves the power to review) were Political Question situations and core functions of the other branches, like Congress' internal rulemaking, executive power to conduct foreign relations and make combat decisions, etc.
I was not aware of a constitutional grant of authority for Congress to pass certain laws that were unreviewable by their own say so.
Article III, Section 2 of the constitution specifically provides that "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
In practice, both the Supreme Court's power to strike down a law and the Congress's power to make laws unreviewable are rarely used, but serve as a kind of latent check on the authority of the other--the threat or possibility of it will sometimes reign in either branch of government from doing what it otherwise would do.
From Wikipedia, recent examples of jurisdiction stripping include the following:
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (inter alia, stripped the federal judiciary of its jurisdiction to review certain Immigration and Naturalization Service decisions),
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (restricting the remedies available to prison inmates),
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (limiting the number of habeas corpus petitions available to prison inmates),
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, ruled an unconstitutional denial of the right of habeas corpus pursuant to the Suspension clause. Boumediene v. Bush.
There have also been hundreds of unsuccessful bills in Congress to strip federal courts of jurisdiction.
Enh... where I'm hesitating here is that the 9th has a reputation as the most overturned court in the nation, and that may have a bearing on the argument also. (Although, IANAL, I believe if a lower decision is upheld, as in this case, it can't be sent to the supreme court, so they can't be overturned here.)
No; the Supreme Court can generally hear cases from Circuit Courts of Appeals or State Supreme Courts (on Federal or Constitutional issues) regardless of which way the case went. The only obvious exceptions are where they lack jurisdiction because there is no genuine "case or controversy" as required by the Constitution, or where Congress has specifically excluded a law or area from being reviewable by them. (Congress has a Constitutionally granted power to do this, with some limitations. It rarely does.)
Ninth Circuit unpublished cases issued after 2006 can be cited to. They are not binding precedent, so a court doesn't *have* to follow them and you don't want to cite to them if you don't have to, but they do have a small but important persuasive role where the facts are very similar to a new case.
I think we were fools to ever trust China in the first place. Now look at how indebted the US is to China. We are just as weak to China as we are to Iran. No leverage anymore because we have basically sold out in order to obtain goods at a better price and US companies can make bigger profits. Google certainly should be praised for its action, but let's also realize how China is slowing killing off any Western connections.
Um... no. China is a much, much, much bigger threat. Going to war with Iran would be like going to war with Maryland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Funny. The Russians seem to have your backs to the wall over the Ukraine...
Not really. We're willing to go to war over some things and not others. Ukraine was serious in the diplomatic community but its ties to the US population are relatively small. Striking a NATO country or certain NATO allies would get the Americans involved in a hurry.
There have been times in the past when America has not gone in, when we know from evidence that came out after the fact that Russia would have backed down if we had. Going into the western part might well have worked here, might have started a major war, or might have gotten us stuck there for ten years while our budget is not in the greatest shape to begin with--it could have severely impacted our readiness to carry on other wars if they become necessary. With Iraq and Afghanistan fresh in our minds, somebody made a call they didn't want to get mired in it. The Russian attack into Ukraine sucks, but it's not a line in the sand for us.
Invade Germany or Poland and you'll see a much bigger response, from the United States and Europe.
Foreigners, on the other hand, have no such agreement, and therefore it's ridiculous to charge them. What's next, Saudi Arabia charges me for having a beer tonight? North Korea charges me for criticizing their regime? Should I serious have to look up every single country's law before I do something, just to make sure I'm not breaking some obscure country's law?
North Korea may not be able to arrest you, but they sure as hell can block your IP and wire transfers into and out of North Korea.
"not a big deal" is the last millennium's "no problem".
It's actually not a big deal.
Seriously, black holes are just a source of gravity. You can orbit around one just like you'd orbit around a star or planet. Sure, if you fall too far into the gravity well you're kinda screwed, but personally I'd be concerned about trying to get off the surface of the sun, too.
Sci-fi writers should have some obligation to try to be a little sciency. Otherwise, why not just call them "Space Dragons?"
Not much different than what is currently offered through Home Depot (except made your credit card number won't be hacked).
Ratings. Uber has totally overthrown the cab industry because of ratings. Drivers are generally good because they have to maintain 4.7 out of 5 on a customer rating to stay in good standing with uber. Now think how many bad contractors there are.
A reliable third-party rating system gives you at least a minimum amount of accountability.
There is a wide range of mailbox types in the US. A mailbox without a lock is common on houses, although apartment buildings tend to have locks on individual mailboxes, generally within a secure vestibule or foyer.
Some buildings have mail slots in or beside the front door that go into a secure area.
Whether the postal service leaves packages depends on how good they consider the area to be. If they worry someone is likely to take the package, some post offices won't leave one unless someone is home.
But you also have theft from conventional municipal mailboxes for sending mail. Criminals hack the mechanics and steal checks, for example, and then alter them to be in their name. A neighbor had one re-written to "Angel Batista," a character from the television show Dexter.
to control their own image, so they don't need to control the campaign. If patrons are happy, they'll do the advertising for them.
This. "Word-of-mouth" is the best single way to advertise your product. Depending on your consumer base and any politics around your brand, a twitter campaign should be fine. You can't control it, but if you're a good company and you aren't dealing with a lot of jerks, it will also be a positive one.
Woodstock stove company, for example, is a very reputable company that makes soapstone and cast iron stoves. They would probably do well on twitter, even though they might get some flame wars from people who are really into other brands of stoves.
I had to go through jury selection a few months back for a capital case, going through three or four rounds of appearances and interviews. Part of what struck me about the experience is how incredibly poor the paperwork was. They gave us number cards when there were 250+ people to go through in my group, they were all handwritten even though the numbers corresponded with the computer-generated numbers we were assigned when the original mailing for service was sent. Forms and questionnaires looked like they were generated in Clarisworks by first-time users in elementary school. Nothing had letterhead, nothing had any sort of official feel.
Your story about no letterhead and using fax machines is totally believable to me, and I'm amazed that it isn't abused more often.
Courts have no money for electronic upgrades, and when they have the money they have to fight a bureaucracy to get them. Seattle is still using DOS-based systems.