A bit of a clarification about the report claiming that the video was faked.
The report claimed, with extensive evidence, that almost everything having to do with the company was faked. They didn't develop any of the technology that they claimed. The components shown were purchased off the shelf, with the origin not acknowledged. With visible components the company names were covered with a decal or simply taped over. The vehicles that they showed were "pushers", a term for a non-functional mock-up, despite being repeatedly described as fully functional.
The report also savaged the supposed expertise of the management team, pointing out that that none of them had relevant expertise. https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/
100 Mbps is an absurd assumption to calculate market size.
Most streaming services are averaging 3-5Mbps, which provides quite good quality. Netflix recommends at least 5Mbps for high quality, but that builds in other internet usage and ISP variability.
Yes, the data rate goes up dramatically for high quality 4K streaming. But most people that don't have reasonable internet now aren't going to reject a service that does drops their streams down to merely HQ during peak times.
A better estimate is that people will accept an average of 1 Mbps, as long as that supports a typical 4 hours a day of 3-5Mbps video plus other usage.
Just like on the golf course, mini-strokes don't count against Trump if no one is watching. You can't prove anything, especially not using those lying traitors who he fired because they were no good.
The Dershowitz argument is even more extreme than you are suggesting.
He was arguing that the president was entirely above the law.
Impeachment is the sole recourse.
Yet the president can't be impeached because it's not a prosecutable crime for the president to break the law.
It was a redux of the Nixon "When the President does it..." that was roundly rejected by the public a half century ago. Nixon resigned and was pardoned before that theory could be tested in court.
Dershowitz basically argued that the president could break any law if he believed that it was in his/her best interest. (With a few intermediate steps e.g. that they believed they were the best president for the country.) And, since the president controlled the Department of Justice, that the president could legitimately stop any investigation or prosecution related to breaking the law in the prior election. While not stated, that implies that an incumbent president can do absolutely anything to stay in office.
I'm guessing that the attorneys already know the answer to the DNA match.
There are several close relatives that wouldn't mind providing a private limited-use sample, and there are plenty of ways to surreptitiously get other samples (albeit without those results being admissible as evidence).
This case is transparently a way to litigate something well past the statute of limitations. But Trump jumped into the obvious trap with both feet, creating a fresh issue. Now Barr is down in the mud, trying to pry open that trap.
A deal like is often a payday for the investors and the specific executives negotiating the deal, and a token amount for the founders, employees and redundant executives.
Some of the terms are actually absurd, such as "(clothing) may not be altered from their original form".
Adding masks to the rules is hardly a stretch. The rules already cover what you can wear on your head, and actually seem to prohibit wearing masks.
Not Approved for School Wear
Pants with holes, appearance of a hole, frays, rips, or tears ... Headgear is prohibited and must be kept out of sight on the school campus during the school day. This includes, but is not limited to, caps, hats, hoods, bandanas, wave caps, sweatbands, sunglasses, or any other head covering. No headphones, combs, rakes, curlers, or picks can be worn in the hair.
Some of the terms are actually absurd, such as "(clothing) may not be altered from their original form".
That sounds remarkably as if you, and only you, gets to decide who is qualified to be a "journalist".
That's not even a half step away from an official news agency. It's a thinly veiled version of "de-certifying" news organization, a common tactic of totalitarian regimes.
Jack Welch's approach got a lot of attention at the time.
One of his ideas was forcing out the bottom 10% of managers every year, and that policy was often propagated downward. During his first five years GE employment dropped by 112,000.
He said, near the end of his time as CEO, “My success will be determined by how well my successor grows [G.E.] in the next 20 years.” But he had left his successor a disfunctional organization. Managers were extremely risk-averse, especially when it came to internal growth. Many of the successful legacy businesses had been sold off. Others were on the cusp of rapid decline because of the lack of long-term R&D investment. Only the financial side was growing, and that only because every loan, lease and sale could be factored to see the next quarter's gain.
I think that his chances of reducing the penalty on appeal are modest, but not zero. The justice system is generally unforgiving, until it comes to one of its own.
Note that he hasn't even been temporarily suspended from the bar. How bad must your behavior be in order to be disbarred in a timely manner?
Only in my final story did I include a mention of pants, when I noted that they were green corduroy. Therefore any depiction of the character wearing pants of any type violates that still-valid copyright.
"I'm dying to know what's in this book that has the Orange in Chief so scared."
My guess is that you wouldn't recognize it when you read it.
But some agency that has been following Fred Trump's "tax-optimized" business dealings would immediately spot the fraud.
I can't see any other reason for fighting so hard to keep the book from being published. It's not directly about the election. Most people have already concluded that the stories about Trump's past are true. His supporters have ignored them before, and aren't likely to be swayed by a retelling or confirmation. For influencing the few undecided voters, a July release is better than an October release.
"Apparently Mary Trump has made a filing with further detail about the NDA. She alleges in her filing that “I relied on false valuations provided to me by my uncles and aunt, and would never have entered into the Agreement had I known the true value of the assets involved.” She also says that the inaccuracy of the valuations was revealed in a 2018 New York Times investigation."
Well, that opens a new dimension to the situation. It potentially opens the rest of the family up to discovery over the true value of estate's assets, and if fraud was committed when the estate was settled.
Normally the time to dispute the valuation would be long since passed. Even if fraud were discovered later (as appears to have happened), it's probably not actionable. But now that the other side of the family is trying to enforce the NDA clause, they have opened the can of worms.
If that's the case, it might have been an element of her strategy all along.
For many years Comcast has been sending me mailings advertising combo packages with TV at a much lower (advertised) price than I'm paying for Internet alone. But I know that the billed amount will be higher and rapidly increase.
The mailed advertising is especially irksome because I get them at least as frequently as the previous mailed bills. Comcast encouraged customers to replace that with paperless billing for environmental reasons.
The judge ruling dismisses the case, not just for Twitter as a defendant. The primary claims were barred by Sec 230. Without the claims involving Twitter, the remaining claims would need to be substantially restated.
There is still a chance that Twitter can recover legal fees, but without an anti-SLAPP law the presumption is that they won't.
I had hoped that Twitter would remain part of the case through either the case being moved to California (with its reasonable SLAPP) or the Virginia legislature passed its mostly-agreed-upon SLAPP law.
The Virginia law was written so that it technically didn't change the underlying law, just how it was applied. That would mean SLAPP protections applied to existing cases, notably the presumption that costs and fees should be awarded to a successful defendant.
Twitter has likely spent in the mid-six-figures defending this lawsuit. If Nunes had to pay, it would be enough money that Nunes would have to declare how the lawsuit had been paid for and why it isn't showing up as a campaign donation.
I'm surprised his office didn't immediately back off and claim he was acting as a private citizen. Although his immediate claim that he was seizing the sign for "an investigation" would be a problem for that claim, they might have gotten around it in court.
Georgia citizens might support this and be willing to re-elect the Sheriff. Which is exactly why federal civil rights laws were needed. It's remarkable that they are apparently still needed.
On the post: Nikola's Plan To Combat Its No Good, Very Bad Month Appears To Be Using Copyright To Silence Critics
A bit of a clarification about the report claiming that the video was faked.
The report claimed, with extensive evidence, that almost everything having to do with the company was faked. They didn't develop any of the technology that they claimed. The components shown were purchased off the shelf, with the origin not acknowledged. With visible components the company names were covered with a decal or simply taped over. The vehicles that they showed were "pushers", a term for a non-functional mock-up, despite being repeatedly described as fully functional.
The report also savaged the supposed expertise of the management team, pointing out that that none of them had relevant expertise. https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/
On the post: Jim Jordan Releases Yet ANOTHER Anti-230 Bill (Yes Another One)
Can't the Senate simply spend the next month arguing about these bills on the floor rather than screwing the other parts of our future?
On the post: Report Notes Musk's Starlink Won't Have The Capacity To Truly Disrupt U.S. Telecom
100 Mbps as the typical subscriber use?
100 Mbps is an absurd assumption to calculate market size.
Most streaming services are averaging 3-5Mbps, which provides quite good quality. Netflix recommends at least 5Mbps for high quality, but that builds in other internet usage and ISP variability.
Yes, the data rate goes up dramatically for high quality 4K streaming. But most people that don't have reasonable internet now aren't going to reject a service that does drops their streams down to merely HQ during peak times.
A better estimate is that people will accept an average of 1 Mbps, as long as that supports a typical 4 hours a day of 3-5Mbps video plus other usage.
On the post: TikTok And The DOJ Still Fighting It Out In Court Despite Oracle 'Deal'
Re: Re: Oh if only...
Oh come on, that's a scurrilous accusation.
Just like on the golf course, mini-strokes don't count against Trump if no one is watching. You can't prove anything, especially not using those lying traitors who he fired because they were no good.
OK, back to my morring covfefe.
On the post: Alan Dershowitz Files SLAPP Suit Against CNN; Says Not Airing More Of What He Said Is Defamation
Re: More context isn't helping you there...
The Dershowitz argument is even more extreme than you are suggesting.
He was arguing that the president was entirely above the law.
Impeachment is the sole recourse.
Yet the president can't be impeached because it's not a prosecutable crime for the president to break the law.
It was a redux of the Nixon "When the President does it..." that was roundly rejected by the public a half century ago. Nixon resigned and was pardoned before that theory could be tested in court.
Dershowitz basically argued that the president could break any law if he believed that it was in his/her best interest. (With a few intermediate steps e.g. that they believed they were the best president for the country.) And, since the president controlled the Department of Justice, that the president could legitimately stop any investigation or prosecution related to breaking the law in the prior election. While not stated, that implies that an incumbent president can do absolutely anything to stay in office.
On the post: DOJ Tries To Step In To Trump Defamation Case To Get It Dismissed; Claims His Statements About Alleged Rape Were Part Of His Presidential Duties
I'm guessing that the attorneys already know the answer to the DNA match.
There are several close relatives that wouldn't mind providing a private limited-use sample, and there are plenty of ways to surreptitiously get other samples (albeit without those results being admissible as evidence).
This case is transparently a way to litigate something well past the statute of limitations. But Trump jumped into the obvious trap with both feet, creating a fresh issue. Now Barr is down in the mud, trying to pry open that trap.
On the post: DOJ Tries To Step In To Trump Defamation Case To Get It Dismissed; Claims His Statements About Alleged Rape Were Part Of His Presidential Duties
Even if this isn't a procedural slam-dunk (and I think that it might be good for at least extended delays), it leads to an interesting question.
Since the US Government is substituting as the defendant, how will it be providing the DNA sample?
On the post: New York State Leaders Finally Realize U.S. Broadband Availability Data Is Hot Garbage
There could easily have been a census question...
On the post: Focals 'Smart' Glasses Become Dumb As A Brick After Google Acquisition
Re:
A deal like is often a payday for the investors and the specific executives negotiating the deal, and a token amount for the founders, employees and redundant executives.
On the post: Georgia School District Inadvertently Begins Teaching Lessons In First Amendment Protections After Viral Photo
Wearing masks "can't" be enforced?
The school district has remarkably strict rules limiting how students must dress.
https://www.paulding.k12.ga.us/Page/1091
Some of the terms are actually absurd, such as "(clothing) may not be altered from their original form".
Adding masks to the rules is hardly a stretch. The rules already cover what you can wear on your head, and actually seem to prohibit wearing masks.
Not Approved for School Wear
Pants with holes, appearance of a hole, frays, rips, or tears ... Headgear is prohibited and must be kept out of sight on the school campus during the school day. This includes, but is not limited to, caps, hats, hoods, bandanas, wave caps, sweatbands, sunglasses, or any other head covering. No headphones, combs, rakes, curlers, or picks can be worn in the hair.
Some of the terms are actually absurd, such as "(clothing) may not be altered from their original form".
On the post: Portland Journalists Ask For Sanctions As Federal Agents Continue To Assault Reporters And Legal Observers
Re: Journalists
That sounds remarkably as if you, and only you, gets to decide who is qualified to be a "journalist".
That's not even a half step away from an official news agency. It's a thinly veiled version of "de-certifying" news organization, a common tactic of totalitarian regimes.
On the post: ProPublica Releases NYPD Discipline Records Its Union Thought It Had Talked A Court Into Keeping Secret
Re: Maybe NYPD would benefit...
Jack Welch's approach got a lot of attention at the time.
One of his ideas was forcing out the bottom 10% of managers every year, and that policy was often propagated downward. During his first five years GE employment dropped by 112,000.
He said, near the end of his time as CEO, “My success will be determined by how well my successor grows [G.E.] in the next 20 years.” But he had left his successor a disfunctional organization. Managers were extremely risk-averse, especially when it came to internal growth. Many of the successful legacy businesses had been sold off. Others were on the cusp of rapid decline because of the lack of long-term R&D investment. Only the financial side was growing, and that only because every loan, lease and sale could be factored to see the next quarter's gain.
On the post: 2nd Circuit Refuses To Stop Sanctions Order On Troll Richard Liebowitz, So He Files Required Notices With Petulant Note Attached
Re:
I think that his chances of reducing the penalty on appeal are modest, but not zero. The justice system is generally unforgiving, until it comes to one of its own.
Note that he hasn't even been temporarily suspended from the bar. How bad must your behavior be in order to be disbarred in a timely manner?
On the post: Estate Of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Alleges Copyright Infringement Over Sherlock's Emotional Awakening
Only in my final story did I include a mention of pants, when I noted that they were green corduroy. Therefore any depiction of the character wearing pants of any type violates that still-valid copyright.
On the post: That Was Quick: Appellate Court Says Simon & Schuster Not Subject To Prior Restraint Order Over Mary Trump's Book; But Fight's Not Over Yet
Re:
My guess is that you wouldn't recognize it when you read it.
But some agency that has been following Fred Trump's "tax-optimized" business dealings would immediately spot the fraud.
I can't see any other reason for fighting so hard to keep the book from being published. It's not directly about the election. Most people have already concluded that the stories about Trump's past are true. His supporters have ignored them before, and aren't likely to be swayed by a retelling or confirmation. For influencing the few undecided voters, a July release is better than an October release.
On the post: That Was Quick: Appellate Court Says Simon & Schuster Not Subject To Prior Restraint Order Over Mary Trump's Book; But Fight's Not Over Yet
Re: New developments
Well, that opens a new dimension to the situation. It potentially opens the rest of the family up to discovery over the true value of estate's assets, and if fraud was committed when the estate was settled.
Normally the time to dispute the valuation would be long since passed. Even if fraud were discovered later (as appears to have happened), it's probably not actionable. But now that the other side of the family is trying to enforce the NDA clause, they have opened the can of worms.
If that's the case, it might have been an element of her strategy all along.
On the post: YouTube Jacks Live TV Streaming Prices 30%, As Streaming Sector Starts To Resemble Good Old Cable
Re:
For many years Comcast has been sending me mailings advertising combo packages with TV at a much lower (advertised) price than I'm paying for Internet alone. But I know that the billed amount will be higher and rapidly increase.
The mailed advertising is especially irksome because I get them at least as frequently as the previous mailed bills. Comcast encouraged customers to replace that with paperless billing for environmental reasons.
On the post: Judge Sides With Twitter Over Devin Nunes In Case Over Satirical Internet Cow: Section 230 Removes Twitter From Frivolous Case
Re: I'm very disappointed
I wanted to follow up on this.
The judge ruling dismisses the case, not just for Twitter as a defendant. The primary claims were barred by Sec 230. Without the claims involving Twitter, the remaining claims would need to be substantially restated.
There is still a chance that Twitter can recover legal fees, but without an anti-SLAPP law the presumption is that they won't.
On the post: Judge Sides With Twitter Over Devin Nunes In Case Over Satirical Internet Cow: Section 230 Removes Twitter From Frivolous Case
I'm very disappointed
I had hoped that Twitter would remain part of the case through either the case being moved to California (with its reasonable SLAPP) or the Virginia legislature passed its mostly-agreed-upon SLAPP law.
The Virginia law was written so that it technically didn't change the underlying law, just how it was applied. That would mean SLAPP protections applied to existing cases, notably the presumption that costs and fees should be awarded to a successful defendant.
Twitter has likely spent in the mid-six-figures defending this lawsuit. If Nunes had to pay, it would be enough money that Nunes would have to declare how the lawsuit had been paid for and why it isn't showing up as a campaign donation.
On the post: Sheriff Goes All In On Violating The First Amendment After Assaulting A Protester For Carrying A 'F*CK TRUMP' Sign
I'm surprised his office didn't immediately back off and claim he was acting as a private citizen. Although his immediate claim that he was seizing the sign for "an investigation" would be a problem for that claim, they might have gotten around it in court.
Georgia citizens might support this and be willing to re-elect the Sheriff. Which is exactly why federal civil rights laws were needed. It's remarkable that they are apparently still needed.
Next >>