Well, "dismisses the complaint" uses terms of art even though it is, if you only speak English and not legalese, correct. The legalese is that the judge "denies the motion for sanctions."
And yes, asking for sanctions is disturbingly common. Show me a lawyer who's never at least been threatened with sanctions in a letter, and I'll show you a lawyer who hasn't done anything useful in court.
I have only one hope in all this, and that is that Ellen Feiss gets to be in another ad. And I kind of want that ad to be her saying "I'm a PC! Ooh, that paper looks really good!" and then eating the paper.
With love,
ari_j
President, Ellen Feiss Fan Club*
* - Okay, maybe not. But our official team name for programming competitions back in college when the ad was playing on TV was the Ellen Feiss Fan Club. It was a simpler time. It was a happier time.
This appears to just be a motion for sanctions for "repeated discovery abuses" (which the RIAA no doubt has lots of experience with), which is different than an entirely new lawsuit just to pursue the matter. Courts can award sanctions against an attorney and/or against a party when they are justified by impermissible tactics, delays, frivolous lawsuits or motions, etc.
Probably not. Lawyers saying things about each other's claims on behalf of clients are generally given a lot of leeway before anyone hits the "defamation" button. Also, there's the problem that he'd have to prove damages - which means he'd have to prove that someone actually believed what the RIAA said.
I think I mentioned I agree with that part. I just don't understand how it is that people with otherwise socially liberal attitudes so often end up intolerant in practice.
It's like that South Park episode where Stan becomes a "noncomformist." I don't think at all that socially liberal attitudes are bad to be exposed to and have a chance to make an informed decision about adopting. I just hate hearing people talk about how they're superior to others because they are tolerant and/or accepting of Jews, Hispanics, and homosexuals while they all along are intolerant of anyone who isn't like-minded as to which rights are important and which are not.
If someone is truly socially liberal, then he shouldn't have such a hard time accepting the things that others find important just because they happen to be heterosexual white males, or even if they happen to be fiercely conservative in their beliefs about what is important.
They're individual rights. That's one category. To the extent that they are different, it's because one of them is explicitly recognized in the US Constitution while the other is not. But the real point is that you were comparing them yourself, in a more direct fashion, for the purpose of demonstrating the apple-orange differences. But they're all fruits.
And if you want to take away individual rights because you think that someone who steals a gun from a lawful owner is unlikely to be able to steal it from somewhere else (like, for instance, a stolen police cruiser, as happens more often than people stealing things from me) and you think that making it harder for a murderer/thief to commit his theft is a justifiable reason to deprive me of liberty, you are not a liberal in any meaningful sense of the word. Your right to speak in public should also be taken away for fear that someone might say something that incites violence. For that matter the right to publish a newspaper is outweighed by the possibility that someone might post encoded classified ads that help organize terrorist cells.
More murders are committed by homosexuals than with all the guns I've ever owned combined. (That statement has exactly the same logical validity as yours.)
Are you saying that the movie destroyed his legacy, or that you are more sensitive because the movie glorified his legacy and you don't want that feeling taken away?
The really sick thing is that, in the USA, "liberal" colloquially means Democrat, not even Libertarian. It certainly doesn't retain any of its literal meaning, beyond perhaps the political philosophy that the government should liberally declare which rights and which property get taken away in order to ease the irrational fears and pocketbooks of the populace. In essence, it means the same as "conservative" except with a different set of irrational fears to pander to.
I'm waiting for you to explain what the impact of my owning a dozen or so firearms has had on you or on anyone else. It wasn't apples to oranges - it was rights to rights. Do you have special connection with a higher power that permits you to decide which rights I shouldn't have, or is it just that you are afraid of things you don't understand?
Is that why so many "liberals" are against people's rights to arm myself, to hunt, to allow oil companies to drill on their land, and other ideas that they have no real-world exposure to but nevertheless want to dictate for people who do? Is it also related to my right to work for my own welfare and choose for myself whether, where, and how much I donate to others'?
No, I think that it's just a different breed of hypocrisy for most of the Americans who call themselves "liberal" to use the term. I agree that, in theory, what you are saying makes sense, regarding exposure to more perspectives causing a person to broaden his horizons.
In practice, though, it's just a different set of values that people try to force on one another. The Republicans and Democrats all want you to fit their respective molds. A true liberal doesn't ask you to fit any mold beyond "don't mess with my shit," but is too rare a beast to be found in any political discussion or election.
They were 86% male, and 65% in academia. What it tells us is that economists are nerds and academics, and we already knew that there is a bias toward nerds and academics being liberal.
More interesting is that I just ran through the 13 categories and subtracted from each candidate's score the percentages of the survey respondents who identify with that candidate's political party. The idea is to get a general idea of how many economists are responding against their bias instead of with it.
Summing the scores, I get 6 points for Obama and 100 for McCain. McCain received more of the respondents' votes than accounted for by political loyalties alone in 10 categories, Obama in 6.
No, you missed the part where he's a self-centered prick. He complains that passing on the right is not legal, but he still drives in the left lane at less than the speed of traffic - which means that he is deliberately driving in a way to prevent people from passing him, because he is the king of the road.
Furthermore, if you are driving the same speed as someone, you should be in front of or behind that person, not next to him (other than in dense traffic). This is doubly true if you are driving substantially less than the speed limit or if your speed is not constant but still matches the other driver's.
Slashdot Mirror
The legitimate error messages of that form often do, indeed, surround "read" with quotation marks.
Is that in Martian years or people years?
No, it just includes songs from Master of Puppets and before. Remember: If it had songs from other bands, they'd have to be from Garage, Inc.
Well, "dismisses the complaint" uses terms of art even though it is, if you only speak English and not legalese, correct. The legalese is that the judge "denies the motion for sanctions."
And yes, asking for sanctions is disturbingly common. Show me a lawyer who's never at least been threatened with sanctions in a letter, and I'll show you a lawyer who hasn't done anything useful in court.
I have only one hope in all this, and that is that Ellen Feiss gets to be in another ad. And I kind of want that ad to be her saying "I'm a PC! Ooh, that paper looks really good!" and then eating the paper.
With love,
ari_j
President, Ellen Feiss Fan Club*
* - Okay, maybe not. But our official team name for programming competitions back in college when the ad was playing on TV was the Ellen Feiss Fan Club. It was a simpler time. It was a happier time.
She turned me into a newt!
The use of the term "common law" here gives this post bonus points toward ot being the Absolute Stupidest Thing Ever Said on the Internet, Ever.
This raises a very critical question: Should the "Lolcat" mod be +1 or -1?
For the language: Common Lisp HyperSpec. Every language should have one.
For things not part of the ANSI standard: Cliki. A wiki with everything from utility libraries to suggested projects to benefit the community.
This appears to just be a motion for sanctions for "repeated discovery abuses" (which the RIAA no doubt has lots of experience with), which is different than an entirely new lawsuit just to pursue the matter. Courts can award sanctions against an attorney and/or against a party when they are justified by impermissible tactics, delays, frivolous lawsuits or motions, etc.
Probably not. Lawyers saying things about each other's claims on behalf of clients are generally given a lot of leeway before anyone hits the "defamation" button. Also, there's the problem that he'd have to prove damages - which means he'd have to prove that someone actually believed what the RIAA said.
I think I mentioned I agree with that part. I just don't understand how it is that people with otherwise socially liberal attitudes so often end up intolerant in practice.
It's like that South Park episode where Stan becomes a "noncomformist." I don't think at all that socially liberal attitudes are bad to be exposed to and have a chance to make an informed decision about adopting. I just hate hearing people talk about how they're superior to others because they are tolerant and/or accepting of Jews, Hispanics, and homosexuals while they all along are intolerant of anyone who isn't like-minded as to which rights are important and which are not.
If someone is truly socially liberal, then he shouldn't have such a hard time accepting the things that others find important just because they happen to be heterosexual white males, or even if they happen to be fiercely conservative in their beliefs about what is important.
They're individual rights. That's one category. To the extent that they are different, it's because one of them is explicitly recognized in the US Constitution while the other is not. But the real point is that you were comparing them yourself, in a more direct fashion, for the purpose of demonstrating the apple-orange differences. But they're all fruits.
And if you want to take away individual rights because you think that someone who steals a gun from a lawful owner is unlikely to be able to steal it from somewhere else (like, for instance, a stolen police cruiser, as happens more often than people stealing things from me) and you think that making it harder for a murderer/thief to commit his theft is a justifiable reason to deprive me of liberty, you are not a liberal in any meaningful sense of the word. Your right to speak in public should also be taken away for fear that someone might say something that incites violence. For that matter the right to publish a newspaper is outweighed by the possibility that someone might post encoded classified ads that help organize terrorist cells.
More murders are committed by homosexuals than with all the guns I've ever owned combined. (That statement has exactly the same logical validity as yours.)
Why does lawful gun ownership necessitate gun crime? That's the underlying assumption of your response.
Just be glad that it was Timothy and not someone else. Then it'd be Douglases' Adam that we have to worry about.
Are you saying that the movie destroyed his legacy, or that you are more sensitive because the movie glorified his legacy and you don't want that feeling taken away?
The really sick thing is that, in the USA, "liberal" colloquially means Democrat, not even Libertarian. It certainly doesn't retain any of its literal meaning, beyond perhaps the political philosophy that the government should liberally declare which rights and which property get taken away in order to ease the irrational fears and pocketbooks of the populace. In essence, it means the same as "conservative" except with a different set of irrational fears to pander to.
I'm waiting for you to explain what the impact of my owning a dozen or so firearms has had on you or on anyone else. It wasn't apples to oranges - it was rights to rights. Do you have special connection with a higher power that permits you to decide which rights I shouldn't have, or is it just that you are afraid of things you don't understand?
s/myself/themselves/ - remnant of earlier version in the first person. Oops.
Is that why so many "liberals" are against people's rights to arm myself, to hunt, to allow oil companies to drill on their land, and other ideas that they have no real-world exposure to but nevertheless want to dictate for people who do? Is it also related to my right to work for my own welfare and choose for myself whether, where, and how much I donate to others'?
No, I think that it's just a different breed of hypocrisy for most of the Americans who call themselves "liberal" to use the term. I agree that, in theory, what you are saying makes sense, regarding exposure to more perspectives causing a person to broaden his horizons.
In practice, though, it's just a different set of values that people try to force on one another. The Republicans and Democrats all want you to fit their respective molds. A true liberal doesn't ask you to fit any mold beyond "don't mess with my shit," but is too rare a beast to be found in any political discussion or election.
I forgot to mention that the vast majority of economists don't run the economy.
They were 86% male, and 65% in academia. What it tells us is that economists are nerds and academics, and we already knew that there is a bias toward nerds and academics being liberal.
;)
More interesting is that I just ran through the 13 categories and subtracted from each candidate's score the percentages of the survey respondents who identify with that candidate's political party. The idea is to get a general idea of how many economists are responding against their bias instead of with it.
Summing the scores, I get 6 points for Obama and 100 for McCain. McCain received more of the respondents' votes than accounted for by political loyalties alone in 10 categories, Obama in 6.
What was the third type of lies, again?
No, you missed the part where he's a self-centered prick. He complains that passing on the right is not legal, but he still drives in the left lane at less than the speed of traffic - which means that he is deliberately driving in a way to prevent people from passing him, because he is the king of the road.
Furthermore, if you are driving the same speed as someone, you should be in front of or behind that person, not next to him (other than in dense traffic). This is doubly true if you are driving substantially less than the speed limit or if your speed is not constant but still matches the other driver's.