No, it wasn't. The Tea Act remained in effect in the colonies. The reason the taxes were "lower" was because they effectively were "prepaid".
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against any taxes imposed by Parliament in the absence of colonial representation. The "lower" taxes (i.e., prepaid taxes) were a trick by the British to get the colonists to concede that Parliament had the authority to levy taxes in the first place.
Now, did tea smugglers and competitors of the British East India Company join in for their own competitive reasons? Yes. But without the primary cause of opposing all taxation by Parliament without representation, the Boston Tea Party never happens.
P.S. Wendy, keep in mind that Roger is from Canada. They use different history books.
Review of the Department's Oversight of Cash Seizure and Forfeiture Activities
So when you Google "define oversight," you get two definitions:
an unintentional failure to notice or do something.
"he said his failure to pay for the tickets was an oversight"
synonyms: mistake, error, omission, lapse, slip, blunder
the action of overseeing something.
"effective oversight of the financial reporting process"
Which one are they using in the title of this report? I can't tell.
Review of the Department's Oversight of Cash Seizure and Forfeiture Activities
So when you Google "define oversight," you get two definitions:
an unintentional failure to notice or do something.
"he said his failure to pay for the tickets was an oversight"
synonyms: mistake, error, omission, lapse, slip, blunder
the action of overseeing something.
"effective oversight of the financial reporting process"
Which one are they using in the title of this report? I can't tell.
This is not a "special education procedure." It is a hearing, which is required by Federal Rule of Evidence 201(e) before the Court can take judicial notice (I errantly cited Rule 201(d) above):
Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.
If you were a party to the case, wouldn't you want an opportunity to tell the judge why he should or shouldn't take judicial notice of a particular fact? If there is a "reasonable dispute", the Court has to decline to take judicial notice.
The point is that Judge Alsup learned to program in Java for the Oracle v. Google case so that he better could understand the concept of APIs. He reached the correct result, finding that Google couldn't have infringed because the Java APIs are not copyrightable.
Of course, Oracle appealed and the Federal Circuit said that APIs are copyrightable. It is clear from their opinion that they wholly lack any understanding of the nature of APIs and how they might differ from copyrightable source code. The case went back to Judge Alsup to try the case over whether Google's use of the Java APIs was a "fair use" under the Copyright Act. While the result is "correct"—Google is not liable for infringement—the Court never should have had to decide the "fair use" question at all. As Mike noted at the time,
[F]air use was the wrong vehicle. The APIs never should have been considered copyright-eligible in the first place, just as the judge in the original trial explained in his very detailed opinion. It's only because an excessively confused federal circuit appeals court mucked things up, that the case had to go back down and be redone over fair use.
As for the phrase "bridges or muffins," that is a reference to Senator Ron Johnson's bizarre analogy about the internet being a bridge for a dozen people but used by the public. An AC responded with the following analogy:
The internet is like a muffin with a series of pulleys attached to its gooey center. And at the end of these pulleys are antarctic monkeys eating your Cheetos. These Cheetos determine who gets what and where with the monkeys, and data makes laps around the muffin, but only two times, so it doesn't get bunched up, because there's only one muffin to do laps around. There's also a crocodile somewhere.
Putting it all together: Judge Alsup learned the tech and ruled correctly, only to be overturned in a ruling setting precedent that APIs are copyrightable. So, maybe he shouldn't learn the tech this time and go with "bridges or muffins" to avoid any more bad precedent.
As for whether my comment was intended seriously, it contained the phrase "bridges or muffins". Enough said.
"FakeNews == BigLie" could return true or false (i.e., you're just testing for equality without disclosing a result). You must mean that "FakeNews = BigLie" (i.e., modern politicians have set the value of "FakeNews" to equal the "BigLie" used by former politicians).
But then, that raises a new question. What's the data type? If it's a boolean, are you suggesting that "BigLie" is set to "true"? Or is "BigLie" set to "false"?
No, you're overlooking that the court may judicially notice only facts that are "not subject to reasonable dispute." If there is a reasonable dispute, only the factfinder can decide that fact (usually a jury, if one has been demanded, or the court, if it is a bench trial).
However, as Mark Atwood noted above, the court will be able to point to everything in this hearing as general industry knowledge and thus not an issue to fight over. It's a good strategy.
One correction to my comment above: Rule 201(e) requires a hearing. Rule 201(d) states that the Court can take judicial notice "at any stage of the proceeding." There is no requirement that this wait for trial.
Alsup seems to be exceeding his judicial authority by "commanding" litigants to educate him on a technical subject.
He isn't. Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits the Court to take notice of adjudicative facts:
(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:
(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Rule 201(c) permits the Court to do this on its own initiative. Rule 201(d) requires a hearing. Rule 201(f) then allows the Court to instruct the jury that these facts are established.
The last time you educated yourself on the technology and nailed both the facts and the law, you got overturned. Feel free to make analogies to bridges and muffins, but whatever you do, don't get educated on the tech. The more right you are, the worse it gets.
So, it may say that it has a page being viewed by a male from Texas, who was recently visiting webpages about boardgames and cow farming (to randomly choose some items).
Since you don't specify, we just will assume that you randomly chose these items from your browser history. Using a Tor exit node in Texas.
Plaintiffs have established the markets for the O.C.G.A. works: printed publications, CD-ROM, and subscription services. When considering Defendant's actions being performed by everyone, it is inevitable that Plaintiffs' markets would be substantially adversely impacted.
This is where fair-use analysis gets sloppy. Yes, they may sell printed copies, but no, they haven't shown that the existence of free versions online hinder the market for printed copies. If that were true, the free version provided by Lexis Nexis already has destroyed that market. Malamud's extra copy doesn't destroy what's already been destroyed.
People pay for printed copies because they like having a handy reference on their desk that they don't mind going out of date and needing replacing from time to time. People pay for subscription services because they want better searching tools, they want the code to cross-reference to the case law, and other factors. People order CD-ROMs because. Wait. No, they don't.
The cell phone searches sound sketchy, especially when law enforcement has apparently acquired 100 cell phone-sized warrants or, worse, one warrant to search them all.
If they were trying to establish probable cause to search each arrestee's residence to find and search a phone, I would agree that one "Lord of the Rings" warrant to search them all would be a problem. But in this case, these phones were all in the alleged rioters' possession at the scene of the crime. The probable cause for the search likely is the same across all of the phones: they could have been used to coordinate the riot.
This isn't a "whatever devices we might happen to find at the location" warrant, as in the Lancaster, California case.
Are you not aware that people can see what you previously wrote? Or perhaps that was a different TechDescartes?
Said as only one can say when they have no answer to the question put to them in the first place. Let's go back to the statement that prompted the question:
This was a little more significant and premeditated than an innocent little "whoopsie".
For the record, I never wrote "innocent", "little", or even "whoopsie". "Premeditated" has a negative connotation, suggesting that the judge issued the first order knowing that the defendant's First Amendment rights were being trampled. That's a serious charge.
Instead of providing support for that charge, the AC responds with questions:
"This judge issues orders with no prior thought involved?"
"So let me ask you, do you have any support for the idea that this judge typically issues rulings without giving them any forethought?"
Neither of those questions follow from the demand for evidence.
On the post: Prosecutors Have Pulled Data From More Than 100 Phones Seized From Inauguration Day Protesters
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it wasn't. The Tea Act remained in effect in the colonies. The reason the taxes were "lower" was because they effectively were "prepaid".
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against any taxes imposed by Parliament in the absence of colonial representation. The "lower" taxes (i.e., prepaid taxes) were a trick by the British to get the colonists to concede that Parliament had the authority to levy taxes in the first place.
Now, did tea smugglers and competitors of the British East India Company join in for their own competitive reasons? Yes. But without the primary cause of opposing all taxation by Parliament without representation, the Boston Tea Party never happens.
P.S. Wendy, keep in mind that Roger is from Canada. They use different history books.
On the post: Report Says DEA Doesn't Even Know If The Billions In Cash It Seizes Is Having Any Impact On Criminal Activity
Gotta Love the Ambiguity
So when you Google "define oversight," you get two definitions:
Which one are they using in the title of this report? I can't tell.
On the post: Report Says DEA Doesn't Even Know If The Billions In Cash It Seizes Is Having Any Impact On Criminal Activity
Gotta Love the Ambiguity
So when you Google "define oversight," you get two definitions:
Which one are they using in the title of this report? I can't tell.
On the post: Judge Alsup Wants Uber & Waymo To Teach Him How To LiDAR Prior To Self-Driving Car Case
Re: Sounds familiar
This is not a "special education procedure." It is a hearing, which is required by Federal Rule of Evidence 201(e) before the Court can take judicial notice (I errantly cited Rule 201(d) above):
If you were a party to the case, wouldn't you want an opportunity to tell the judge why he should or shouldn't take judicial notice of a particular fact? If there is a "reasonable dispute", the Court has to decline to take judicial notice.
On the post: Judge Alsup Wants Uber & Waymo To Teach Him How To LiDAR Prior To Self-Driving Car Case
Re: Re: With all due respect, Your Honor
The point is that Judge Alsup learned to program in Java for the Oracle v. Google case so that he better could understand the concept of APIs. He reached the correct result, finding that Google couldn't have infringed because the Java APIs are not copyrightable.
Of course, Oracle appealed and the Federal Circuit said that APIs are copyrightable. It is clear from their opinion that they wholly lack any understanding of the nature of APIs and how they might differ from copyrightable source code. The case went back to Judge Alsup to try the case over whether Google's use of the Java APIs was a "fair use" under the Copyright Act. While the result is "correct"—Google is not liable for infringement—the Court never should have had to decide the "fair use" question at all. As Mike noted at the time,
As for the phrase "bridges or muffins," that is a reference to Senator Ron Johnson's bizarre analogy about the internet being a bridge for a dozen people but used by the public. An AC responded with the following analogy:
Putting it all together: Judge Alsup learned the tech and ruled correctly, only to be overturned in a ruling setting precedent that APIs are copyrightable. So, maybe he shouldn't learn the tech this time and go with "bridges or muffins" to avoid any more bad precedent.
As for whether my comment was intended seriously, it contained the phrase "bridges or muffins". Enough said.
On the post: Real Talk About Fake News
Re: Re: FakeNews == BigLie
"FakeNews == BigLie" could return true or false (i.e., you're just testing for equality without disclosing a result). You must mean that "FakeNews = BigLie" (i.e., modern politicians have set the value of "FakeNews" to equal the "BigLie" used by former politicians).
But then, that raises a new question. What's the data type? If it's a boolean, are you suggesting that "BigLie" is set to "true"? Or is "BigLie" set to "false"?
I'm confused.
On the post: Judge Alsup Wants Uber & Waymo To Teach Him How To LiDAR Prior To Self-Driving Car Case
Re: Re: Re: Sounds familiar
No, you're overlooking that the court may judicially notice only facts that are "not subject to reasonable dispute." If there is a reasonable dispute, only the factfinder can decide that fact (usually a jury, if one has been demanded, or the court, if it is a bench trial).
However, as Mark Atwood noted above, the court will be able to point to everything in this hearing as general industry knowledge and thus not an issue to fight over. It's a good strategy.
One correction to my comment above: Rule 201(e) requires a hearing. Rule 201(d) states that the Court can take judicial notice "at any stage of the proceeding." There is no requirement that this wait for trial.
On the post: Judge Alsup Wants Uber & Waymo To Teach Him How To LiDAR Prior To Self-Driving Car Case
Re: Re: Sounds familiar
He isn't. Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) permits the Court to take notice of adjudicative facts:
Rule 201(c) permits the Court to do this on its own initiative. Rule 201(d) requires a hearing. Rule 201(f) then allows the Court to instruct the jury that these facts are established.
Excellent move by the judge.
On the post: Judge Alsup Wants Uber & Waymo To Teach Him How To LiDAR Prior To Self-Driving Car Case
With all due respect, Your Honor
On the post: No, You Can't Buy Congress's Internet Data, Or Anyone Else's
Oddly Specific
Since you don't specify, we just will assume that you randomly chose these items from your browser history. Using a Tor exit node in Texas.
On the post: Real Talk About Fake News
"Alice" in Wonderland
Newspapers went through "yellow journalism" a hundred years ago. And survived. Without legislation.
Just because something happens "on a computer" doesn't mean that it's new.
On the post: Tell California Assembly Not To Ignore The First Amendment As It Tries To Ban Fake News
Bye-Partisan
So Chau and Trump have found common ground. Sad.
On the post: Broadway Play Changes Set Design Over Cafe Trademark Threat And, No, That Doesn't Make Any Damned Sense
One Pastry to Rule Them All
"Trolli Cannoli" apparently means "controls cannoli".
On the post: Court Says Posting Georgia's Official Annotated Laws Is Not Fair Use, And Thus Infringing
Market Failure
This is where fair-use analysis gets sloppy. Yes, they may sell printed copies, but no, they haven't shown that the existence of free versions online hinder the market for printed copies. If that were true, the free version provided by Lexis Nexis already has destroyed that market. Malamud's extra copy doesn't destroy what's already been destroyed.
People pay for printed copies because they like having a handy reference on their desk that they don't mind going out of date and needing replacing from time to time. People pay for subscription services because they want better searching tools, they want the code to cross-reference to the case law, and other factors. People order CD-ROMs because. Wait. No, they don't.
On the post: UK Home Secretary: I Need People Who Understand The Necessary Hashtags To Censor Bad People Online
iJabberwocky
Did post and upload in the cloud:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the meme raths download.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The files that hide, the clouds that catch!
Beware the Twitter bird, and shun
The frumious Instagram!"
On the post: Encryption Workarounds Paper Shows Why 'Going Dark' Is Not A Problem, And In Fact Is As Old As Humanity Itself
Kudos
On the post: Prosecutors Have Pulled Data From More Than 100 Phones Seized From Inauguration Day Protesters
LOTR Warrant
If they were trying to establish probable cause to search each arrestee's residence to find and search a phone, I would agree that one "Lord of the Rings" warrant to search them all would be a problem. But in this case, these phones were all in the alleged rioters' possession at the scene of the crime. The probable cause for the search likely is the same across all of the phones: they could have been used to coordinate the riot.
This isn't a "whatever devices we might happen to find at the location" warrant, as in the Lancaster, California case.
On the post: Arkansas Legislators Want To Make Corporate Whistleblowing Illegal
Re: Re: Talking Points
On the post: Arkansas Legislators Want To Make Corporate Whistleblowing Illegal
Talking Points
"Think of the children"? Check.
On the post: Judge Decides Free Speech Is Still A Right; Dumps Prior Restraint Order Against Mattress Review Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: judges
Said as only one can say when they have no answer to the question put to them in the first place. Let's go back to the statement that prompted the question:
For the record, I never wrote "innocent", "little", or even "whoopsie". "Premeditated" has a negative connotation, suggesting that the judge issued the first order knowing that the defendant's First Amendment rights were being trampled. That's a serious charge.
Instead of providing support for that charge, the AC responds with questions:
Neither of those questions follow from the demand for evidence.
Next >>