The other great thing about DUIs is that the standards are now so low that talking on a phone is worse than "legaly drunk" and the number of DUI fatalities is gowring, as they have to continue to justify their MADD campaign (madd as in the hatter), a mob boss that kills an informant, and throws him in the trunk, dead, crashes on the way to dump the body. If the dead body, dead before the crash, were to test positive for alcohol, the crash would be listed as "alcohol involved" even if none of the drivers had any traces of alcohol in their system. It wouldn't get a DUI conviction for the mob boss, but it would get listed in FARS as "alcohol related" and be used in nexy year's MADD campaign.
Zealotry is good for quick sweeping changes (the mindset of the US changed much faster with MADD), but horrible for the last 20% (plenty of people still think "I'll be ok", but aren't, but won't be swayed by any MADD campaign).
MADD started out good, but ended up corrupted by the prohibitionists. They should have declared victory in about 1998 and closed down, with a promise to come back if the progress was lost, rather than turning into a rabid anti-drinking organization.
Some laws are equally ignored. And a new law to fix an unenforced law rarely works. But sometimes we want the law followed, and a new law feels like doing something to that end, since the enforcement is so far from our control (MADD with DUI, when unsafe driving was always illegal).
Given how turbo bikes have been tried and mostly abandoned, I can't see how this would be interesting. Perhaps a quicker suicide bike, but boost makes bikes handle poorly.
It's energy that's needed to charge the electric system to power the car, so why is torque important? Why would an engine putting out 500 hp and 300 ft-lbs power a generator worse than an engine with 500 hp and 1500 ft-lbs?
Fixing the broken law with more laws won't work, if the problem with the law is nobody is following it. Try enforcement first, before changing the law. It's amazing what happens when a law gets enforced.
If every building was covered in solar panels, we'd have enough to run the country without use of coal. Of course, we'd have to buy cheap Chinese panels, so that's illegal.
A presidential pardon is un-overturnable. Ford got away with a blanket pardon for unkown crimes, pardoning Nixon. So I see no issue with Obama pardoning Snowden for any crimes committed while in the employ of the NSA. Hell, isn't that par for the course for the NSA?
The meanings of "aid" for treason were intended to be things like arms (Like Bush and Reagan sold to our enemies in the Middle East, actual treason), and not "protested the GOP, and thus weakened the USA internationally, 'aiding' al Qaida", which is the level of aid you are talking about. Yes, the enemies like the Germans will have issues with what came out, but for actual shooting enemies, there's nothing I've seen indicated to actually aid them, they already suspected everything revealed.
This wasn't intended to indicate that things like Jury Nullification don't or shouldn't exist, but that the judge shoud never nullify testimony. If the judge wanted to exclude it, the direction should have been given to the jury during the trial so that the plaintiff could adjust based on jury directions. Changing the rules after the trial is over is very dis-advantageous to the party ruled against.
You are free to leave at any time, you just move back to India (or wherever). You can't take the incentive and then walk away and use the incentive to start a life in California. That's slavery like a coupon is slavery.
If you want to use that coupon, you can only do so at Target. Slavery!!!
Sadly, I've seen entirely too many situations where Corporation A still preferred the H1B (or illegal immigrant, depending on the jobs skill level), even though hiring an American had similar costs.
That's illegal. If an American is available for the job, they aren't allowed to use the foreigner, regardless of cost.
The cost for an H1-B should be a scholarship for someone to be trained to that job. It shouldn't be cheaper to pull in someone else, rather than train them up. If they don't want to wait to train them, fine. But make them pay for it, and then lets start training people up.
So your opinion is that a witness isn't evidence. "I saw him shoot him" and "I heard him confess" should result in a murder acquittal unless the have the gun with fingerprints on it, and the bloody clothes with DNA as "evidence."
The plaintiff did present an expert witness. The judge, arbitrarily and capriciously (and after the fact) disallowed the expert witness, then retried the case in his chambers with him as the judge, lawyer and jury.
The judge may have made an error in allowing the expert witness in the first place, but compounding it with a second, larger error doesn't help.
Rarely. It's safer to practice IFR in VFR conditions. I will not fly in IFR conditions, if I can avoid it (as I don't fly for a living, all my flying is recreational, so I'll err on the side of caution). If I ever get a paid flying job, I'm sure that will change, but I'm not well dispositioned for being a flight instructor, and that's pretty much the only thing you can get right out of the gate with a CPL. I fly as money allows and when my hours are high enough, I might be able to find something else.
A post-trial motion is an appeal, even if not explicitly an appeal to a higher court. They appealed the decision to the trial judge through additional motions filed after the finding. As we aren't in court, that fits the definition of "appeal" in the English language.
I'm not really sure what you mean about "some were so different... " Are you referring to the differences between Madden from year to year? With some exceptions, the gameplay from year to year was pretty much the same.
That's what the jury found as well, but the judge over-ruled the jury.
Why do you think that is? Because football has pretty much stayed the same.
Back in the late '80s, the sports games had substantially different looks and feels. They also had different gameplay. The plaintiffs assertion (proven in court to a jury, over-ruled by the trial judge who allowed the testamony) was that if there were no copying, the games would have been more different, as different as two random football games of the same year. Was the Tecmo version identical to the EA of the same year (not EA, but bought by EA, eventually, and EA is being sued for it)? No, they were "vastly" different, but the ones based on the plaintiffs work were nearly identical?
The point is that if you tell a thousand different developers to build an NFL football game, you're going to get a very similar result each and every time (assuming the developers have equal understanding of the game).
I disagree. Some were more about percentages of lineups (if you picked the best defensive lineup against the offensive play, you'd have a favorable outcome, even if the defense gameplay was poor). Others were more about time management (shortened quarters and halves to fit a console life-style, with timeouts and other time stoppers available). In short, there are "favorite" parts of the game to many people. And they won't make the most realistic game possible, but the funnest to play. Some will go with realism to the point of obscenity (A= step with left foot, B= step with right, so you have to mash buttons to run), and others will have auto-run auto-catch, and you focus on setting up the plays, lineup, and the gameplay of the football game is self-playing. None is wrong, but they are vastly different. And when this suit is about, there wasn't an industry consensus on
ideal gameplay, so it varied wildly between games. Unless you are looking at EA's versions after this developer's game. The jury ruled "identical".
Slashdot Mirror
The other great thing about DUIs is that the standards are now so low that talking on a phone is worse than "legaly drunk" and the number of DUI fatalities is gowring, as they have to continue to justify their MADD campaign (madd as in the hatter), a mob boss that kills an informant, and throws him in the trunk, dead, crashes on the way to dump the body. If the dead body, dead before the crash, were to test positive for alcohol, the crash would be listed as "alcohol involved" even if none of the drivers had any traces of alcohol in their system. It wouldn't get a DUI conviction for the mob boss, but it would get listed in FARS as "alcohol related" and be used in nexy year's MADD campaign.
Zealotry is good for quick sweeping changes (the mindset of the US changed much faster with MADD), but horrible for the last 20% (plenty of people still think "I'll be ok", but aren't, but won't be swayed by any MADD campaign).
MADD started out good, but ended up corrupted by the prohibitionists. They should have declared victory in about 1998 and closed down, with a promise to come back if the progress was lost, rather than turning into a rabid anti-drinking organization.
Some laws are equally ignored. And a new law to fix an unenforced law rarely works. But sometimes we want the law followed, and a new law feels like doing something to that end, since the enforcement is so far from our control (MADD with DUI, when unsafe driving was always illegal).
Given how turbo bikes have been tried and mostly abandoned, I can't see how this would be interesting. Perhaps a quicker suicide bike, but boost makes bikes handle poorly.
It's energy that's needed to charge the electric system to power the car, so why is torque important? Why would an engine putting out 500 hp and 300 ft-lbs power a generator worse than an engine with 500 hp and 1500 ft-lbs?
And the driver has to hold his breath for a lap.
Fixing the broken law with more laws won't work, if the problem with the law is nobody is following it. Try enforcement first, before changing the law. It's amazing what happens when a law gets enforced.
Nah, more like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
If every building was covered in solar panels, we'd have enough to run the country without use of coal. Of course, we'd have to buy cheap Chinese panels, so that's illegal.
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.
Sounds like he accused him of fraud. That could be good enough for a libel suit win.
A presidential pardon is un-overturnable. Ford got away with a blanket pardon for unkown crimes, pardoning Nixon. So I see no issue with Obama pardoning Snowden for any crimes committed while in the employ of the NSA. Hell, isn't that par for the course for the NSA?
What do you propose happens to those without the means to move?
The meanings of "aid" for treason were intended to be things like arms (Like Bush and Reagan sold to our enemies in the Middle East, actual treason), and not "protested the GOP, and thus weakened the USA internationally, 'aiding' al Qaida", which is the level of aid you are talking about. Yes, the enemies like the Germans will have issues with what came out, but for actual shooting enemies, there's nothing I've seen indicated to actually aid them, they already suspected everything revealed.
This wasn't intended to indicate that things like Jury Nullification don't or shouldn't exist, but that the judge shoud never nullify testimony. If the judge wanted to exclude it, the direction should have been given to the jury during the trial so that the plaintiff could adjust based on jury directions. Changing the rules after the trial is over is very dis-advantageous to the party ruled against.
You are free to leave at any time, you just move back to India (or wherever). You can't take the incentive and then walk away and use the incentive to start a life in California. That's slavery like a coupon is slavery.
If you want to use that coupon, you can only do so at Target. Slavery!!!
Which declared enemy did he aid, and in what manner?
Sadly, I've seen entirely too many situations where Corporation A still preferred the H1B (or illegal immigrant, depending on the jobs skill level), even though hiring an American had similar costs.
That's illegal. If an American is available for the job, they aren't allowed to use the foreigner, regardless of cost.
The only winning move is not to play.
The cost for an H1-B should be a scholarship for someone to be trained to that job. It shouldn't be cheaper to pull in someone else, rather than train them up. If they don't want to wait to train them, fine. But make them pay for it, and then lets start training people up.
So your opinion is that a witness isn't evidence. "I saw him shoot him" and "I heard him confess" should result in a murder acquittal unless the have the gun with fingerprints on it, and the bloody clothes with DNA as "evidence."
The plaintiff did present an expert witness. The judge, arbitrarily and capriciously (and after the fact) disallowed the expert witness, then retried the case in his chambers with him as the judge, lawyer and jury.
The judge may have made an error in allowing the expert witness in the first place, but compounding it with a second, larger error doesn't help.
Rarely. It's safer to practice IFR in VFR conditions. I will not fly in IFR conditions, if I can avoid it (as I don't fly for a living, all my flying is recreational, so I'll err on the side of caution). If I ever get a paid flying job, I'm sure that will change, but I'm not well dispositioned for being a flight instructor, and that's pretty much the only thing you can get right out of the gate with a CPL. I fly as money allows and when my hours are high enough, I might be able to find something else.
Do you have a pilot's license?
Yes. Do you?
A post-trial motion is an appeal, even if not explicitly an appeal to a higher court. They appealed the decision to the trial judge through additional motions filed after the finding. As we aren't in court, that fits the definition of "appeal" in the English language.
Laymen giving legal advice are sharing personal opinions about legal matters. Unless paid to give that legal advice.
I'm not really sure what you mean about "some were so different ... " Are you referring to the differences between Madden from year to year? With some exceptions, the gameplay from year to year was pretty much the same.
That's what the jury found as well, but the judge over-ruled the jury.
Why do you think that is? Because football has pretty much stayed the same.
Back in the late '80s, the sports games had substantially different looks and feels. They also had different gameplay. The plaintiffs assertion (proven in court to a jury, over-ruled by the trial judge who allowed the testamony) was that if there were no copying, the games would have been more different, as different as two random football games of the same year. Was the Tecmo version identical to the EA of the same year (not EA, but bought by EA, eventually, and EA is being sued for it)? No, they were "vastly" different, but the ones based on the plaintiffs work were nearly identical?
The point is that if you tell a thousand different developers to build an NFL football game, you're going to get a very similar result each and every time (assuming the developers have equal understanding of the game).
I disagree. Some were more about percentages of lineups (if you picked the best defensive lineup against the offensive play, you'd have a favorable outcome, even if the defense gameplay was poor). Others were more about time management (shortened quarters and halves to fit a console life-style, with timeouts and other time stoppers available). In short, there are "favorite" parts of the game to many people. And they won't make the most realistic game possible, but the funnest to play. Some will go with realism to the point of obscenity (A= step with left foot, B= step with right, so you have to mash buttons to run), and others will have auto-run auto-catch, and you focus on setting up the plays, lineup, and the gameplay of the football game is self-playing. None is wrong, but they are vastly different. And when this suit is about, there wasn't an industry consensus on ideal gameplay, so it varied wildly between games. Unless you are looking at EA's versions after this developer's game. The jury ruled "identical".