Having clerked for the Supreme Court of New York (trial level folks, watch Law & Order), which is above a small claims court, I can tell you that judges don't read briefs. Their law clerks do. On the first and second pages are the summary of the arguments and the facts, you can tell from this is the arguments are new ones (which they are less than 1% of the time) or if the arguments have a real chance (Out of every 100 briefs I read, I would say 85 had a chance). When you have 300 pages to read every day, there is no point in reading an argument you've read before that is a loser, especially when you have bad facts. ALSO, obvious winners are often skimmed (at best) because the loser is obvious.
Just because your brief is not looked at super-duper closely does not mean the judge (or, more accurately, his/her law clerk) does not understand your arguments and facts, and then put it down because there is no point in reading more when you know what to tell the judge.
And trust me, I'm right on this one, every clerk does the same thing. All the arguments are the same, especially in small claims court where the facts, NOT THE LAW, are more important.
It's amazing how law school has jaded me, good lord...
As a third year law student, I wrote 3 papers for this semester, totaling approximately 100 pages. The term paper is not dead, all that needs to be done is make sure there are citations (whether it is footnotes/endnotes or a bibliography) to show where they got the information from.
All that is going to happen is viruses (virii?) will become stronger and stronger and eventually one will occur we cannot stop. Kinda sad to say, really.
No one knows where this college is without looking it up. When a major college does this, make news out of it. I'm relatively sure Berklee College has been a mac campus for years, but then again it's an arts college (mostly music) so it's logical. And at least Berklee is in Boston, not Wilkes-Barre PA... which is a lovely area if you like boredom. And yes, I've been there.::yawn::
The thing that has always fascinated me about the American judicial system (really, any truly established judicial system has this problem.. such as the entire EU, Japan, etc) is that the decisions are often not made by the judges at all. Yes, it's the judge's name on the decision, but the work is done by the law clerk, who is often still in law school. We see who the poor advocates are and since no lawyers ever get disbarred (unless they do something truly horrid, like lie on the stand. See e.g. William Jefferson Clinton), we get annoyed at how bad some attorneys are for their clients. Until you've sat in the court room and watched some attorney put on a show for his client and completely blow the case (which anyone who has spent more than 1 week in a court room has seen), you cannot understand the desire to out the person as a bad advocate.
As long as you can back up your trashing of people, I think it's ok to do it. Why is doing something that's "not nice" such a horrible thing? Sometimes you gotta be not so nice in order to get a bad attorney to stop being an attorney (or even become a not-so-bad attorney).
Bill Gates is saying that American will not be able to train enough people in Computer Science and/or Engineering. That's what he means. He's saying that if we change our immigration policies to make it harder to get in, we'll keep out those we don't want (read: people without education) and those we do want (read: people with education). I'm not saying we don't want people without education, I'm just saying if we clamp down on immigration due to the problem (which may be a perceived one, I don't know or care) we will also lose those who have skills that will benefit America (well, Corporate America).
I still think the South Park episode does a great job of explaining this problem. ("Goobacks" Season 8 Episode 6)
Almost all bills are put through and, at the end, someone puts something unrelated into it. For example, why is daylight's savings time 3 weeks early? Ta-da! No one checks.
However, if the executive power was increased via law, it would be invalidated by the courts. So relax, even conservatives know limits.
Remember, separation of powers is in the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.
These are my thoughts from when I worked at Best Buy (May 03 - August 04). Quite often, we used to have no stores in the district that had a computer that a customer wanted. We would go online to get the computer, but we could get it shipped to any store or the customer, but we could never get it shipped to the store for immediate pickup (which would mean the next one that came in would be immediately given to that customer). Also, sometimes the deals would be a little different, often lower (although sometimes they would get a slightly better deal... but usually on minor products such as CD burners or something).
We basically figured that the website we went to was not the real best buy website, instead it was basically the same one set up for in store, for some special purpose. Frankly, it makes sense.
Why won't this happen? Because Verizon, Sprint/Nextel, AT&T/Cingular will not let their networks be opened. These companies spent truckloads of money building networks that they will not let be taken away and I cannot see an administrative agency getting any sort of go ahead to do this.
Is it a good idea? No. They are private networks and they should not be taken away from their owners.
Neither of these companies is particularly profitable (if at all). It won't be considered a monopoly by the SEC because of terrestrial (FM & AM) radio and this will result in lowering costs in two ways. First and foremost, the advertising and overhead budgets will be lower than the companies as they were separate. Secondly, duplicative channels will be combined into one.
This will probably not result in lower prices for the consumer, but it will (or at least should) result in profits for their investors.
They're already interference with private property, DDoS attacks are illegal. They may not be specifically outlawed, but make no mistake, they are by no means legal.
He can't win. Realistically speaking, no one will take an addiction to internet porn as a realistic problem. Think about the ramifications if he wins, you can look at porn while at work... I doubt even the most hardened first amendment proponents will not want people shirking off at work and looking at porn. I just look at this claim as being an attempt to get a quick settlement by making a splash in the news. It just won't win, the attorney who brought this should be disciplined.
I don't know what else you would expect from this group.
First and foremost, what they are doing is entrapment and they have no ability to come into your office and take anything. ONLY the police are allowed to and then, only with a warrant (or with exigent circumstances, which only exists when there is a threat to health or safety... which clearly does not exist here).
The RIAA are a bunch of high bankrolled bullies who make it seem like they have a quasi-legal status. What they do to DJs is larceny and no less. This is why you get a signed contract or some record of a discussion.
I think it's good. I think people are too willing to blame other people for their inabilities to watch their kids. People love suing someone else for their inability to explain to their kids that people online are often not what they say they are. Want to prevent this? Get some software to track where your kids go or prevent them from going there. Talk to them. I'm sure it's tough to get through to 13-year olds (other than being a camp counselor while in HS and being one over a decade ago I have no real clue what it's like) but I know I at least remember what my parents had told me sticking in the back of my head. I guess I'm just a law student who is sick and tired of people suing for stupid reasons.
all it's banning is access to social networking sites in schools, public libraries, etc. frankly, it's not a bad law because it will prevent kids from accessing things without their parents being able to prevent them.
i like how people are making this into a first amendment issue, you are being stupid. this will do 2 things:
Prevent viruses (virii?) from getting onto public computers because some dumb 14 year old wants to listen to the new fall out boy song
Help keep kids safe.
Also, this is STATE police power, which they can do. What Congress can't do, States often may...
The real problem is people go to their doctors and say "I have [sickness]. I need [specific drug]," when they have SOME of the symptoms and not severe enough to have the sickness or need the drug. The last thing we need to do is take medicine out of the hands of doctors (who, last time I checked, still go to college/med school for approximately a decade for a reason) and put it in the hands of drug dealers (or pharmaceutical companies, whichever term you prefer).
Doctors (such as my father) abhor these ads because they do not help medicine or the patient, they help drug companies convince people they are sick when they are not.
This is "onboarding," where you can only buy one thing (what you want) if you buy a second thing (that you don't want or should not have to buy).
I'm not surprised e-machines is pulling this, anyone who buys an emachines computer should be punched in the face. And no, I am not joking. They are pieces of crap.
Google Maps (and I presume Earth) has blurred a lot of things, often nuclear sites, corporate R&D facilities, and a lot of schools that do research with anything nuclear, chemical, or the like. I noticed this a year or so ago, truth be told it's not a bad idea. Although, is it making picking a target (without knowing the reason) easier?
if you look at old pennies (pre-1980s) and new pennies (recent ones) you will notice how much thinner new pennies are. also, there's zinc inside all the coins now, they're basically silver or copper coated.
just a thought.
The scariest part about this whole argument is not the fact that this argument is being made, governmental agencies have been trying to make this argument for over 200 years now. The scariest part is that the Bush administration has been trying to make this argument, to a lesser degree, since the 9/11 attacks. The idea that these are not absolute (other than Justice Holmes' famous "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" line) is an absurdity. The Bill of Rights was enacted to limit the Federal Government's power over states and people. These are unalienable rights and I find it amazing that anyone thinks habeas corpus (the right to seek redress for unlawful imprisonment) is not an absolute, inalienable right.
If somehow they're allowed to do this, police can arrest and hold people in jail, indefinitely, without charges. Somehow I had hoped this only happened in other countries, but now I worry that our administration will change all that.
before, the SEC would get mad. now the SEC has the teeth. since companies must value outstanding options which decrease company assets (and profits), and understating of value of the options is a violation of the SEC acts of 1933 and 1934. This carries real prison time and real fines. If they're convicted it's a felony and they can't serve as an Executive officer or on the board of any SEC-reporting company. AKA they get fired.
kinda sweet, i think.
and you can thank worldcom for this one. this is a big thing they did.
If they (whether the IRS or Congress acts first) do anything, I think they will end up making it a simple, brightline test. If you sell anything for actual money, you get taxed on it. They will probably allow deductions (monthly fees, any basis in the item sold, etc) on a very basis level.
I just don't see how they (once again, either the IRS or Congress) can allow this to realistically go on without any taxation when there are goods sold at a profit. States will (probably) not be able to tax any sale (as sales taxes do not apply to interstate commerce), but I could see this being income for both the IRS and the state income tax authority (if your state has income tax, some do and some do not).
And as for where to tax? They'll do what they have been doing for years. If you're a citizen, we tax you. If you're a resident, we tax you. If you're a non-resident alien, we tax you. This is an "effectively connected" issue (26 U.S.C. S864(c)) and I never thought I would use that section after I took that multinational tax class, but apparently I did.
As for how to tax it? It's a good, you sold it. It will either be a short term capital gain (if held 1 year or less) or a long term capital gain (longer than 1 year) and will use the applicable tax rates that depend on your income. I would assume you can get losses (and therefore deductions) as well, but I would be if they do act on the issue, they will limit the losses to the extent of gains. That means you cannot take a net loss and the loss is passed on to the next year.
I guess the companies that run this will have to start printing those tax forms you get in late january every year. kinda nifty, i think.
The government can tax any "accession to wealth." If they tax your gains from playing, I would imagine any monies spent in order to make the money would be deductible (as a business expense, sort of like the costs of purchasing an asset). Congress could say no to this, but I am speculating on something the IRS will act on (and pass regulations) before Congress will do anything.
The real problem here is I doubt the government will be able to tax this unless it is converted to real money. There are two major road blocks in the way. First, they need a set exchange rate. It as if the currency is the money of another country, so even if the value fluctuates, the key will be the value on the end of the tax year (calendar year for people). Second, I doubt they will tax it until it is actually exchanged into real currency. Frankly, it would be like a stock in that you don't pay for any gains until you sell it.
Slashdot Mirror
Having clerked for the Supreme Court of New York (trial level folks, watch Law & Order), which is above a small claims court, I can tell you that judges don't read briefs. Their law clerks do. On the first and second pages are the summary of the arguments and the facts, you can tell from this is the arguments are new ones (which they are less than 1% of the time) or if the arguments have a real chance (Out of every 100 briefs I read, I would say 85 had a chance). When you have 300 pages to read every day, there is no point in reading an argument you've read before that is a loser, especially when you have bad facts. ALSO, obvious winners are often skimmed (at best) because the loser is obvious.
Just because your brief is not looked at super-duper closely does not mean the judge (or, more accurately, his/her law clerk) does not understand your arguments and facts, and then put it down because there is no point in reading more when you know what to tell the judge.
And trust me, I'm right on this one, every clerk does the same thing. All the arguments are the same, especially in small claims court where the facts, NOT THE LAW, are more important.
It's amazing how law school has jaded me, good lord...
As a third year law student, I wrote 3 papers for this semester, totaling approximately 100 pages. The term paper is not dead, all that needs to be done is make sure there are citations (whether it is footnotes/endnotes or a bibliography) to show where they got the information from.
Are papers dead? Definitely Not.
All that is going to happen is viruses (virii?) will become stronger and stronger and eventually one will occur we cannot stop. Kinda sad to say, really.
No one knows where this college is without looking it up. When a major college does this, make news out of it. I'm relatively sure Berklee College has been a mac campus for years, but then again it's an arts college (mostly music) so it's logical. And at least Berklee is in Boston, not Wilkes-Barre PA... which is a lovely area if you like boredom. And yes, I've been there. ::yawn::
The thing that has always fascinated me about the American judicial system (really, any truly established judicial system has this problem.. such as the entire EU, Japan, etc) is that the decisions are often not made by the judges at all. Yes, it's the judge's name on the decision, but the work is done by the law clerk, who is often still in law school. We see who the poor advocates are and since no lawyers ever get disbarred (unless they do something truly horrid, like lie on the stand. See e.g. William Jefferson Clinton), we get annoyed at how bad some attorneys are for their clients. Until you've sat in the court room and watched some attorney put on a show for his client and completely blow the case (which anyone who has spent more than 1 week in a court room has seen), you cannot understand the desire to out the person as a bad advocate.
As long as you can back up your trashing of people, I think it's ok to do it. Why is doing something that's "not nice" such a horrible thing? Sometimes you gotta be not so nice in order to get a bad attorney to stop being an attorney (or even become a not-so-bad attorney).
Bill Gates is saying that American will not be able to train enough people in Computer Science and/or Engineering. That's what he means. He's saying that if we change our immigration policies to make it harder to get in, we'll keep out those we don't want (read: people without education) and those we do want (read: people with education). I'm not saying we don't want people without education, I'm just saying if we clamp down on immigration due to the problem (which may be a perceived one, I don't know or care) we will also lose those who have skills that will benefit America (well, Corporate America).
I still think the South Park episode does a great job of explaining this problem. ("Goobacks" Season 8 Episode 6)
Almost all bills are put through and, at the end, someone puts something unrelated into it. For example, why is daylight's savings time 3 weeks early? Ta-da! No one checks.
However, if the executive power was increased via law, it would be invalidated by the courts. So relax, even conservatives know limits.
Remember, separation of powers is in the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.
These are my thoughts from when I worked at Best Buy (May 03 - August 04).
Quite often, we used to have no stores in the district that had a computer that a customer wanted. We would go online to get the computer, but we could get it shipped to any store or the customer, but we could never get it shipped to the store for immediate pickup (which would mean the next one that came in would be immediately given to that customer). Also, sometimes the deals would be a little different, often lower (although sometimes they would get a slightly better deal... but usually on minor products such as CD burners or something).
We basically figured that the website we went to was not the real best buy website, instead it was basically the same one set up for in store, for some special purpose. Frankly, it makes sense.
Selling something on ebay gives rise to income, I'm shocked the IRS hasn't made ebay do this before...
Why won't this happen? Because Verizon, Sprint/Nextel, AT&T/Cingular will not let their networks be opened. These companies spent truckloads of money building networks that they will not let be taken away and I cannot see an administrative agency getting any sort of go ahead to do this.
Is it a good idea? No. They are private networks and they should not be taken away from their owners.
Neither of these companies is particularly profitable (if at all). It won't be considered a monopoly by the SEC because of terrestrial (FM & AM) radio and this will result in lowering costs in two ways. First and foremost, the advertising and overhead budgets will be lower than the companies as they were separate. Secondly, duplicative channels will be combined into one.
This will probably not result in lower prices for the consumer, but it will (or at least should) result in profits for their investors.
They're already interference with private property, DDoS attacks are illegal. They may not be specifically outlawed, but make no mistake, they are by no means legal.
He can't win. Realistically speaking, no one will take an addiction to internet porn as a realistic problem. Think about the ramifications if he wins, you can look at porn while at work... I doubt even the most hardened first amendment proponents will not want people shirking off at work and looking at porn.
I just look at this claim as being an attempt to get a quick settlement by making a splash in the news. It just won't win, the attorney who brought this should be disciplined.
I don't know what else you would expect from this group.
First and foremost, what they are doing is entrapment and they have no ability to come into your office and take anything. ONLY the police are allowed to and then, only with a warrant (or with exigent circumstances, which only exists when there is a threat to health or safety... which clearly does not exist here).
The RIAA are a bunch of high bankrolled bullies who make it seem like they have a quasi-legal status. What they do to DJs is larceny and no less.
This is why you get a signed contract or some record of a discussion.
I think it's good. I think people are too willing to blame other people for their inabilities to watch their kids. People love suing someone else for their inability to explain to their kids that people online are often not what they say they are. Want to prevent this? Get some software to track where your kids go or prevent them from going there. Talk to them. I'm sure it's tough to get through to 13-year olds (other than being a camp counselor while in HS and being one over a decade ago I have no real clue what it's like) but I know I at least remember what my parents had told me sticking in the back of my head. I guess I'm just a law student who is sick and tired of people suing for stupid reasons.
4 86&cid=18020810rel=url2html-26219http://yro.slashd ot.org/comments.pl?sid=222486&cid=18020810>
I still agree with what I said here: ahref=http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222
frankly, they need to standardize Movies, Music & Video games. Movies and video games are exceedingly arbitrary.
i like how people are making this into a first amendment issue, you are being stupid. this will do 2 things:
Also, this is STATE police power, which they can do. What Congress can't do, States often may...
The real problem is people go to their doctors and say "I have [sickness]. I need [specific drug]," when they have SOME of the symptoms and not severe enough to have the sickness or need the drug. The last thing we need to do is take medicine out of the hands of doctors (who, last time I checked, still go to college/med school for approximately a decade for a reason) and put it in the hands of drug dealers (or pharmaceutical companies, whichever term you prefer).
Doctors (such as my father) abhor these ads because they do not help medicine or the patient, they help drug companies convince people they are sick when they are not.
This is "onboarding," where you can only buy one thing (what you want) if you buy a second thing (that you don't want or should not have to buy).
I'm not surprised e-machines is pulling this, anyone who buys an emachines computer should be punched in the face. And no, I am not joking. They are pieces of crap.
Google Maps (and I presume Earth) has blurred a lot of things, often nuclear sites, corporate R&D facilities, and a lot of schools that do research with anything nuclear, chemical, or the like. I noticed this a year or so ago, truth be told it's not a bad idea. Although, is it making picking a target (without knowing the reason) easier?
if you look at old pennies (pre-1980s) and new pennies (recent ones) you will notice how much thinner new pennies are. also, there's zinc inside all the coins now, they're basically silver or copper coated. just a thought.
The scariest part about this whole argument is not the fact that this argument is being made, governmental agencies have been trying to make this argument for over 200 years now. The scariest part is that the Bush administration has been trying to make this argument, to a lesser degree, since the 9/11 attacks. The idea that these are not absolute (other than Justice Holmes' famous "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" line) is an absurdity. The Bill of Rights was enacted to limit the Federal Government's power over states and people. These are unalienable rights and I find it amazing that anyone thinks habeas corpus (the right to seek redress for unlawful imprisonment) is not an absolute, inalienable right.
If somehow they're allowed to do this, police can arrest and hold people in jail, indefinitely, without charges. Somehow I had hoped this only happened in other countries, but now I worry that our administration will change all that.
before, the SEC would get mad. now the SEC has the teeth. since companies must value outstanding options which decrease company assets (and profits), and understating of value of the options is a violation of the SEC acts of 1933 and 1934. This carries real prison time and real fines. If they're convicted it's a felony and they can't serve as an Executive officer or on the board of any SEC-reporting company. AKA they get fired. kinda sweet, i think. and you can thank worldcom for this one. this is a big thing they did.
If they (whether the IRS or Congress acts first) do anything, I think they will end up making it a simple, brightline test. If you sell anything for actual money, you get taxed on it. They will probably allow deductions (monthly fees, any basis in the item sold, etc) on a very basis level.
I just don't see how they (once again, either the IRS or Congress) can allow this to realistically go on without any taxation when there are goods sold at a profit. States will (probably) not be able to tax any sale (as sales taxes do not apply to interstate commerce), but I could see this being income for both the IRS and the state income tax authority (if your state has income tax, some do and some do not).
And as for where to tax? They'll do what they have been doing for years. If you're a citizen, we tax you. If you're a resident, we tax you. If you're a non-resident alien, we tax you. This is an "effectively connected" issue (26 U.S.C. S864(c)) and I never thought I would use that section after I took that multinational tax class, but apparently I did.
As for how to tax it? It's a good, you sold it. It will either be a short term capital gain (if held 1 year or less) or a long term capital gain (longer than 1 year) and will use the applicable tax rates that depend on your income. I would assume you can get losses (and therefore deductions) as well, but I would be if they do act on the issue, they will limit the losses to the extent of gains. That means you cannot take a net loss and the loss is passed on to the next year.
I guess the companies that run this will have to start printing those tax forms you get in late january every year. kinda nifty, i think.
The government can tax any "accession to wealth." If they tax your gains from playing, I would imagine any monies spent in order to make the money would be deductible (as a business expense, sort of like the costs of purchasing an asset). Congress could say no to this, but I am speculating on something the IRS will act on (and pass regulations) before Congress will do anything.
The real problem here is I doubt the government will be able to tax this unless it is converted to real money. There are two major road blocks in the way. First, they need a set exchange rate. It as if the currency is the money of another country, so even if the value fluctuates, the key will be the value on the end of the tax year (calendar year for people). Second, I doubt they will tax it until it is actually exchanged into real currency. Frankly, it would be like a stock in that you don't pay for any gains until you sell it.
That's all I got.