I doubt it. Even with food prep, even though things have advanced, if robot chef technology is good enough, it would have been moved to every fast food joint by now, but even today, robochefs are still a novelty, at best making a "custom" pizza.
It has gotten good enough in the past few years, and it is currently being moved to fast food joints. The transition isn't instantaneous.
You want a smaller prison population? Quit being a thug. Quit pushing a culture that values violence, lack of education, and laziness.
In other words, stop pushing United States culture? Maybe not laziness, I guess, but violence and lack of education are the two primary values in about half the country.
What phones really need is a delete combo so that you can give them a number that wipes out key areas but unlocks the phone.
Destruction of evidence carries pretty substantial punishment. If I remember correctly, the prosecutor would also be allowed to draw the conclusion that is the worst for the person who caused the destruction.
"I'll tell you one thing. If the primates that we came from had known that someday politicians would come out of the gene pool, they'd have stayed up in the trees and written evolution off as a bad idea!"
What I'm saying is that Net Neutrality is incompatible with one of the basic tenants of the Republican party. If you agree with Net Neutrality you disagree with the Republican party. Maybe not individuals, but with the party's ideals.
And here I was thinking that having competitive markets was one of those basic tenets.
I love the mentality that says, "You made a good thing but because I can't get one you are terrible."
They didn't break a contract, they didn't take your money and not deliver, they simply made a product that you desire and decided not to meet demand for their own reasons. Nintendo did not wrong you.
Why exactly is it unreasonable to call a company "terrible" just because they didn't break a contract with you or directly harm you?
California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,"
That's a deeply meaningful policy definition. What about someone who had too much coffee?
If someone has consumed enough coffee that their ability to drive is impaired, then yes, they would probably be arrested for DUI. For the vast majority of people, one or two cups of coffee won't impair them at all. Whether or not "enough" is above the LD50 level, I don't know.
If it's truly just annotations, I would assume that it's the author and/or publisher.
And, since it is the annotated state code that is the official law
That seems to be the open question in this conversation, and I don't personally know the answer. I was only commenting on the statements of yours that I quoted. If these "annotations" are part of the legally binding text, then I absolutely agree that they are part of the law and thus should not be eligible for copyright. If they really are just annotations (e.g. excerpts from court decisions, commentary, etc.), then the book is a copyrightable work.
In case you have noticed lately, the vast majority of the strong proponents of gun ownership are quite happy with rule by the rich, as long as they think the rich will protect them from the blacks, Muslims, and gays. I wouldn't count on them to side with the populace in your scenario.
The annotations are not the product of creative work, only the compilation of existing public information.
The former does not necessarily follow from the latter. Compiling public information can still be a creative work if, for example, decisions must be made about what information to include in the compilation and what information to exclude.
The same logic was applied by the US Supreme Court to deny copyright protection of phone books.
The denial of copyright protection only applies to the content of the phone book, insofar as there are no creative decisions involved in listing all names, addresses, and phone numbers in alphabetical order.
I always hear this refrain in situations like this. But suppose one of the contributions went something like this:
if (flag1 != "value") {
doIt();
}
How the hell do you re-write something like that? An "if" statement keys on the value of a single variable and conditionally executes a function. There are some things for which there is only one solution.
If there's truly only one possible solution for something that simple, then it isn't copyrightable anyway. Copyright requires some amount of creative expression, and something like that wouldn't meet the minimum level of creativity.
I've worked with lawyers enough already, thank you very much.
a) It depends on how the fraud laws are written. If the law says something like, "only the following specific things are fraud", then yes, it would require changing the law. If, however, the law is general, such as saying something like "any deception regarding the terms of a transaction", then that law can be applied to a case such as this one. To be honest, I don't care enough to look them up, and the specifics will vary by state anyway.
b) As far as I know, "buyer beware" is not a law. In fact, if that were the case, fraud wouldn't be illegal.
c) Maybe to make it a binding precedent across the entire country, but I doubt the Supreme Court would accept a case like this, so any lower court rulings would stand.
We need a simple law that clarifies this point. Out law the use of the words 'buy' or 'sell' when dealing with a license - including physical products that include a necessary license, such as those evil John Deere Tractors.
Then when some shmuck tries to sell a John Deere tractor, arrest them for fraud, as they are actually renting it to you for an unspecified amount of time. If they want to use the words 'buy' or sell', they have to include free-as-in-speech software on it. Otherwise, it is fraud, punishable by a fine.
We don't need an additional law for that, we just a need a judge and/or jury to decide that it counts as fraud.
Incorrect. The Hawaiian judge based his opinion upon "intent" as expressed verbally by members of the Trump campaign in the run-up to the election. The actual (second) order was more carefully written to avoid any reference to religion (here, read it yourself.) There is not a legal scholar, Left or Right, in the U.S. who believes that the partisan Hawaiian ruling will withstand appeal.
If a person didn't read the Washington judge's opinion, in which he cited precedent for finding that statements indicating discriminatory intent can be used to invalidate a law, then he isn't much of a legal scholar.
It is well established that evidence of
purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be
considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection
Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye,
Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free
Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends
beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets
religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be
shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial
neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a
facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in
light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply
regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington
Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266-
68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent,
including the historical background of the decision and
statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in
evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by
a discriminatory purpose).
The circuit court cited the due process clause in respect to lawful permanent residents. The White House had issued instructions that the policy doesn't apply to lawful permanent residents. The district court indicated that the White House might, in the future, change that policy, and if they changed it there would potentially be a due process issue. That sounds like twisted reasoning to me - stay the actual, existing order because some other order which could be issued in the future might be wrong.
They did. As they said, White House counsel can say that the order doesn't apply to permanent residents, but because such a person is not in the chain of command, their statement does not carry the authority that an executive order carries. "The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President... Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments." It isn't enough that "the White House" says the order doesn't apply to certain people; such a change would have to be in an order signed by the president.
The court explicitly declined to comment on the establishment of religion clause. An establishment claim would be interesting- the President also blocked a country which happens to be majority Christian - is that discrimination against Christians? If the majority of the country affected happen to be tall, would that be discrimination against tall people? Interesting.
They did comment on it, they just didn't issue a formal decision (which isn't really their job at this point). They noted that the intent of a law matters (with cited precedent) and that there are serious questions regarding the intent of this executive order. Just because the text of the executive order doesn't have the word "Muslim" in it, the order can still be illegally discriminatory if the intent is to target a certain religion.
Btw I think Trump is a jackass, and I voted against him twice. I also think the law, as written, very clearly allows him to have this policy, even *if* it's a dumb policy. (I know nothing about Yemen, so I can't say whether or not the government there is unwilling or unable to provide documentation for screening).
The law as written can allow whatever it wants, but the courts can still invalidate the law if they decide that it contradicts the Constitution.
If you wish to make a claim that the Constitution overrides this law I'd be glad to discuss that with you. If so, which article of the Constitution do you have in mind?
I'd have to go back and check the Circuit Court's opinion, but I believe it was the Establishment of Religion, Due Process, and (I think) Equal Protection clauses.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it. Even with food prep, even though things have advanced, if robot chef technology is good enough, it would have been moved to every fast food joint by now, but even today, robochefs are still a novelty, at best making a "custom" pizza.
It has gotten good enough in the past few years, and it is currently being moved to fast food joints. The transition isn't instantaneous.
You want a smaller prison population? Quit being a thug. Quit pushing a culture that values violence, lack of education, and laziness.
In other words, stop pushing United States culture? Maybe not laziness, I guess, but violence and lack of education are the two primary values in about half the country.
And the whole secure in your papers thing, even if no physical sheet of dried wood pulp/linen pulp/ papyrus/ scraped sheepskin/etc is used.
You might want to read the rest of that amendment.
...no one should be compelled to give up evidence that incriminates themselves, ever. It's a basic right.
So you believe that search warrants should never be allowed? That would have a significant effect on the ability to prosecute crimes.
What phones really need is a delete combo so that you can give them a number that wipes out key areas but unlocks the phone.
Destruction of evidence carries pretty substantial punishment. If I remember correctly, the prosecutor would also be allowed to draw the conclusion that is the worst for the person who caused the destruction.
"I'll tell you one thing. If the primates that we came from had known that someday politicians would come out of the gene pool, they'd have stayed up in the trees and written evolution off as a bad idea!"
there's plenty of alternatives for Internet Service. Some are better than others. There's cell phones, Satelites, etc.
In many cases, those aren't even competitors - AT&T owns all three now.
You can also move. And that's not me being flippant, Ajit Pai himself suggested it.
Nothing says privilege like arguing that a viable option for switching to a different ISP is to just move to a different city.
What I'm saying is that Net Neutrality is incompatible with one of the basic tenants of the Republican party. If you agree with Net Neutrality you disagree with the Republican party. Maybe not individuals, but with the party's ideals.
And here I was thinking that having competitive markets was one of those basic tenets.
I love the mentality that says, "You made a good thing but because I can't get one you are terrible." They didn't break a contract, they didn't take your money and not deliver, they simply made a product that you desire and decided not to meet demand for their own reasons. Nintendo did not wrong you.
Why exactly is it unreasonable to call a company "terrible" just because they didn't break a contract with you or directly harm you?
California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,"
That's a deeply meaningful policy definition. What about someone who had too much coffee?
If someone has consumed enough coffee that their ability to drive is impaired, then yes, they would probably be arrested for DUI. For the vast majority of people, one or two cups of coffee won't impair them at all. Whether or not "enough" is above the LD50 level, I don't know.
You haven't gotten a new wallet since the 1970's... Are ya loonie?
Wallets include coin pouches now?
He has complained about liberals trying to legislate in the court room when they can't get laws passed, including on gay rights issues.
Is that because he isn't familiar with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? That's rather disturbing for a Supreme Court Justice.
But who is making these decisions?
If it's truly just annotations, I would assume that it's the author and/or publisher.
And, since it is the annotated state code that is the official law
That seems to be the open question in this conversation, and I don't personally know the answer. I was only commenting on the statements of yours that I quoted. If these "annotations" are part of the legally binding text, then I absolutely agree that they are part of the law and thus should not be eligible for copyright. If they really are just annotations (e.g. excerpts from court decisions, commentary, etc.), then the book is a copyrightable work.
In case you have noticed lately, the vast majority of the strong proponents of gun ownership are quite happy with rule by the rich, as long as they think the rich will protect them from the blacks, Muslims, and gays. I wouldn't count on them to side with the populace in your scenario.
The annotations are not the product of creative work, only the compilation of existing public information.
The former does not necessarily follow from the latter. Compiling public information can still be a creative work if, for example, decisions must be made about what information to include in the compilation and what information to exclude.
The same logic was applied by the US Supreme Court to deny copyright protection of phone books.
The denial of copyright protection only applies to the content of the phone book, insofar as there are no creative decisions involved in listing all names, addresses, and phone numbers in alphabetical order.
I always hear this refrain in situations like this. But suppose one of the contributions went something like this:
if (flag1 != "value") { doIt(); }
How the hell do you re-write something like that? An "if" statement keys on the value of a single variable and conditionally executes a function. There are some things for which there is only one solution.
If there's truly only one possible solution for something that simple, then it isn't copyrightable anyway. Copyright requires some amount of creative expression, and something like that wouldn't meet the minimum level of creativity.
So what exactly is "not all bad" about repealing the imperfect protections we *do* have?
The executives at the ISPs will get a slightly higher bonus this year. I guess technically that means it isn't all bad?
Congress slapped it down, now they will write a real law.
Hahahahaha
This Congress? Spend time doing their jobs?
Hahahahahahahaha
I've worked with lawyers enough already, thank you very much.
a) It depends on how the fraud laws are written. If the law says something like, "only the following specific things are fraud", then yes, it would require changing the law. If, however, the law is general, such as saying something like "any deception regarding the terms of a transaction", then that law can be applied to a case such as this one. To be honest, I don't care enough to look them up, and the specifics will vary by state anyway.
b) As far as I know, "buyer beware" is not a law. In fact, if that were the case, fraud wouldn't be illegal.
c) Maybe to make it a binding precedent across the entire country, but I doubt the Supreme Court would accept a case like this, so any lower court rulings would stand.
We need a simple law that clarifies this point. Out law the use of the words 'buy' or 'sell' when dealing with a license - including physical products that include a necessary license, such as those evil John Deere Tractors.
Then when some shmuck tries to sell a John Deere tractor, arrest them for fraud, as they are actually renting it to you for an unspecified amount of time. If they want to use the words 'buy' or sell', they have to include free-as-in-speech software on it. Otherwise, it is fraud, punishable by a fine.
We don't need an additional law for that, we just a need a judge and/or jury to decide that it counts as fraud.
Incorrect. The Hawaiian judge based his opinion upon "intent" as expressed verbally by members of the Trump campaign in the run-up to the election. The actual (second) order was more carefully written to avoid any reference to religion (here, read it yourself.) There is not a legal scholar, Left or Right, in the U.S. who believes that the partisan Hawaiian ruling will withstand appeal.
If a person didn't read the Washington judge's opinion, in which he cited precedent for finding that statements indicating discriminatory intent can be used to invalidate a law, then he isn't much of a legal scholar.
It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266- 68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).
>>Why do people keep saying this?
Because many people cite the travel ban as some kind of example of "Islamaphobia"
You mean like Trump and Giuliani?
I was thinking the same thing about Puppet. I haven't used it much, but I don't remember there being a programming language involved.
The circuit court cited the due process clause in respect to lawful permanent residents. The White House had issued instructions that the policy doesn't apply to lawful permanent residents. The district court indicated that the White House might, in the future, change that policy, and if they changed it there would potentially be a due process issue. That sounds like twisted reasoning to me - stay the actual, existing order because some other order which could be issued in the future might be wrong.
They did. As they said, White House counsel can say that the order doesn't apply to permanent residents, but because such a person is not in the chain of command, their statement does not carry the authority that an executive order carries. "The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President... Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments." It isn't enough that "the White House" says the order doesn't apply to certain people; such a change would have to be in an order signed by the president.
The court explicitly declined to comment on the establishment of religion clause. An establishment claim would be interesting- the President also blocked a country which happens to be majority Christian - is that discrimination against Christians? If the majority of the country affected happen to be tall, would that be discrimination against tall people? Interesting.
They did comment on it, they just didn't issue a formal decision (which isn't really their job at this point). They noted that the intent of a law matters (with cited precedent) and that there are serious questions regarding the intent of this executive order. Just because the text of the executive order doesn't have the word "Muslim" in it, the order can still be illegally discriminatory if the intent is to target a certain religion.
Btw I think Trump is a jackass, and I voted against him twice. I also think the law, as written, very clearly allows him to have this policy, even *if* it's a dumb policy. (I know nothing about Yemen, so I can't say whether or not the government there is unwilling or unable to provide documentation for screening).
The law as written can allow whatever it wants, but the courts can still invalidate the law if they decide that it contradicts the Constitution.
If you wish to make a claim that the Constitution overrides this law I'd be glad to discuss that with you. If so, which article of the Constitution do you have in mind?
I'd have to go back and check the Circuit Court's opinion, but I believe it was the Establishment of Religion, Due Process, and (I think) Equal Protection clauses.