"Is [Judge Sparks] being too hard on lawyers for, well, doing what lawyers do?"
When lawyers do things that make a mockery of the law, the judge should take them to the woodshed. The beatings should continue until such behavior is no longer what lawyers do.
The "moving platform" is a neat theory, but there just seem to be too many things that can go wrong. On an ordinary train platform, if a passenger has trouble with the door (trips and falls, gets a sleeve caught on something, whatever) the crew notice and the train doesn't move until things are sorted out. If something goes wrong on this tandem train, the only thing to do is bring both trains to a stop-- if there's enough time before the tracks diverge. And don't even think about pranksters (or worse) with, say, some stout nylon rope.
Anyway, Heinlein wrote "The Roads Must Roll" in 1940. Think of a subway with no trains, just several wide conveyor belts running side-by-side at different speeds. Step from the platform to the slowest belt, then walk across to the next faster one, then the next. Get going as fast as you want, and when you approach your destination stop (or city), reverse the process. Partitions mounted on some belts keep the wind from getting too severe. Oh, and the point of the story was that anyone who can shut down your transportation network has a dangerous amount of power over society.
Clearly someone at BART has heard of O.W. Holmes's famous words in Schenck v. U.S. about "falsely shouting fire in a theater", speech that has no legitimate purpose and actually causes "clear and present danger". By taking this position they can retain the option to do the same kind of thing in the future, if criticized they can retreat to the well-established precedent about the narrow case and claim that that's what they meant all along, and best of all they don't have to admit that what they did was an unconstitutional violation of civil rights, only that they were being overcautious this time.
How does this "paperwork" work? If I have papers that show that the ebony bridge of my guitar is legal, what happens when I have the bridge replaced by an unethical luthier in Lithuania? Does the certificate crumble into ashes? Is there a serial number etched into the legitimate bridge, perhaps with a cryptographic hash of the grain pattern?
Is it really necessary that the papers be, well, papers? If Gibson keeps its supply chain in order, couldn't it provide downloadable compliance certificates, by serial number? Or maybe by model and year?
And is it really necessary that the papers describe where and when the wood was harvested and carved into a bridge? Wouldn't it be enough to say that it's legal? The only purpose I can see for maintaining all of that information is to allow previously allowed instruments to be made "illegally manufactured" with the stroke of a pen, which sounds to me like retroactive law ("ex post facto"), which is unconstitutional. It also serves the purpose of making the law harder to comply with, but I usually attribute that to incompetence rather than malice.
(P.S. Sorry, I don't often get to use the word "luthier", and I got a little carried away.)
You've got the scope wrong. The dead Chinese relatives are harmed, in that from now in they'll get (cardboard effigies of) handbags less prestigious than Louis Vuitton and Burberry.
A script can do that if I press the button. Or, heck, I can write a script that will do it. In the context above it looked to me as if he were saying that someone else could take a simple action that would tell Facebook about all of his actions, which sounded impossible. Maybe it's obvious to those who are familiar with Facebook (I am not) that that's not what he meant.
“Facebook can trace every click on a website, how long I’m on it, what I’m interested in,” he said. According to Weichert, all the information was sent to the US company even if someone was not a Facebook member.
If this quote is accurate, either Herr Weichert has a very poor grasp of how the internet works, or I do.
No it's not really the same thing. Even if he had bought only one book, and had bought it in Germany, and were trying to sell it on eBay, it still wouldn't be the same, because his name's not Joe.
Those comments were on the Fox News Facebook page. These are not typical commenters, or even typical Christians, they are Fox News Christians. Just search YouTube for "fox atheist", get an idea of the station's own standards of intellect and civility, and then try to imagine their fanbase. Heck, for all we know they might be even worse when they can wear masks. For a fair comparison we should look at a site before and after pseudonymity is banned.
But the real question is not whether people are less rude when they must expose their real names. The real question is twofold:
How does the imposition of a real name requirement change the discourse on a site, and
if that change is for the better, is it worth the nuisance to the users (e.g loss of privacy, fear of being haunted by one's words in the distant future, headaches of proving one's identity)?
'I actually have to go down to Long Beach next month for a speaking engagement, and I'm now tempted to take a bunch of photographs that have "no apparent esthetic value."'
Is the weather unseasonable for sunglasses and a trench coat? They say a burnouse is very comfortable in the heat. I suppose it all depends on your choice of facial hair.
If the company bought the patents as a defensive measure, then it's as if the company's office must be be wallpapered with sheets of gold, which can be salvaged if and when the company folds: starting the company requires extra capital for this, capital which can be recovered in liquidation.
If the company created the patents, then why can't the board sell them without closing the company? If they cover inventions which the company is actually using, the company could require a full license as part of the sale agreement-- this shouldn't diminish the market value of the patents at all, since they couldn't be used against a defunct company anyway, and they can still be used against everyone else in the market (unless the company stands to corner the market in a valuable product, in which case the board would be insane to consider liquidation).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't have a proper police state without it.
I was about to reply that I knew I couldn't ask for it, I just meant...
Then I realized that I wasn't sure what I meant. Without a test, I'd have doubts about the lab results-- which is just what the defense would want. If the labs failed the test I would dismiss their results (and the testimony of any expert who vouched for them), but if they passed I'd trust that evidence, so maybe doing the tests would be a bad bet for the defense.
The prosecution could arrange the test (if they actually thought the lab didn't fiddle the results), but at best that would convince a skeptic like me at the cost of raising doubts in the minds of more typical jurors, reminding them that lab results can be false...
Just thinking about lawyers makes me think this way.
Re: Re: Can't have a proper police state without it.
"...My opinion is that it's only a "frame" if you DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO THE CRIME."
I disagree, but at best you're making a point that out_of_the_blue used the wrong word: he is asserting that the police planted evidence. I believe that OJ was probably guilty, but that doesn't make the police more trustworthy, it doesn't excuse them for tampering with evidence if they did so, and it doesn't make me confident that they wouldn't fabricate evidence against someone who was actually innocent.
If I were on the jury of a case like that, I'd want to see the defense submit some blinded samples to the same lab, just to see whether they can get the same results without any covert hints. (That kind of curiosity is why I'll never be allowed on a jury, and that in turn is why a defender will rarely make that kind of test, for fear of how it might turn out.)
On the post: Double Bogus DMCA Takedown All The Way!
untended consasquatches
On the post: e360's $11 Million Win Against Spamhaus... Now Reduced To Just $3 (Not $3 Million, But Just $3)
legal question
On the post: Benchslapped: Judge Invites Lawyers To 'Kindergarten Party' To Learn How To Be A Lawyer
my object all sublime / I shall achieve in time
When lawyers do things that make a mockery of the law, the judge should take them to the woodshed. The beatings should continue until such behavior is no longer what lawyers do.
On the post: DailyDirt: Trains, Trains, Trains. I've Got a Thing About Trains...
Heinlein did it (of course)
Anyway, Heinlein wrote "The Roads Must Roll" in 1940. Think of a subway with no trains, just several wide conveyor belts running side-by-side at different speeds. Step from the platform to the slowest belt, then walk across to the next faster one, then the next. Get going as fast as you want, and when you approach your destination stop (or city), reverse the process. Partitions mounted on some belts keep the wind from getting too severe. Oh, and the point of the story was that anyone who can shut down your transportation network has a dangerous amount of power over society.
On the post: All Of Justin Bieber's Music Removed From YouTube Via 'Prank' DMCA Claims
Re: something's gotta give
On the post: All Of Justin Bieber's Music Removed From YouTube Via 'Prank' DMCA Claims
something's gotta give
1) Everyone will accept the fact that videos can be taken down, including those put up by Big Players.
2) The "put-'em-back-up" process will be greatly streamlined for Big Players, to the point where the interruptions are barely noticeable.
3) The DMCA will be amended to correct the "notice-and-takedown" protocol.
4) The DMCA will be amended with a hideous tangle of legal language which works out to "videos put up by Big Players may not be taken down".
5) Like 4, but it works out to "only Big Players may file notices".
On the post: BART Bosses Say Phone Shutoff Will Only Be Used In 'Extreme Situations' Going Forward
falsely shouting "extreme case"
On the post: Feds Raid Gibson; Musicians Now Worried The Gov't Will Take Their Guitars Away
a silly question
How does this "paperwork" work? If I have papers that show that the ebony bridge of my guitar is legal, what happens when I have the bridge replaced by an unethical luthier in Lithuania? Does the certificate crumble into ashes? Is there a serial number etched into the legitimate bridge, perhaps with a cryptographic hash of the grain pattern?
Is it really necessary that the papers be, well, papers? If Gibson keeps its supply chain in order, couldn't it provide downloadable compliance certificates, by serial number? Or maybe by model and year?
And is it really necessary that the papers describe where and when the wood was harvested and carved into a bridge? Wouldn't it be enough to say that it's legal? The only purpose I can see for maintaining all of that information is to allow previously allowed instruments to be made "illegally manufactured" with the stroke of a pen, which sounds to me like retroactive law ("ex post facto"), which is unconstitutional. It also serves the purpose of making the law harder to comply with, but I usually attribute that to incompetence rather than malice.
(P.S. Sorry, I don't often get to use the word "luthier", and I got a little carried away.)
On the post: NYC Arrests Stop Dead Chinese From Infringing
Re:
On the post: German Officials Outlaw Facebook 'Like' Button
Re: Like button is a script--no clicking needed.
On the post: German Officials Outlaw Facebook 'Like' Button
technology as magic
If this quote is accurate, either Herr Weichert has a very poor grasp of how the internet works, or I do.
On the post: Legally Bought Some Books Abroad? Sell Them In The US And You Could Owe $150k Per Book For Infringement
Re:
There are indeed differences. So what?
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re: Re: sample bias
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
sample bias
But the real question is not whether people are less rude when they must expose their real names. The real question is twofold:
On the post: Police Say They Can Detain Photographers If Their Photographs Have 'No Apparent Esthetic Value'
fashion photography
Is the weather unseasonable for sunglasses and a trench coat? They say a burnouse is very comfortable in the heat. I suppose it all depends on your choice of facial hair.
On the post: How Getting A Patent Can Actually Be Detrimental To A Startup's Long Term Success
Re: Poison pill?
On the post: How Getting A Patent Can Actually Be Detrimental To A Startup's Long Term Success
I'm missing something here...
If the company bought the patents as a defensive measure, then it's as if the company's office must be be wallpapered with sheets of gold, which can be salvaged if and when the company folds: starting the company requires extra capital for this, capital which can be recovered in liquidation.
If the company created the patents, then why can't the board sell them without closing the company? If they cover inventions which the company is actually using, the company could require a full license as part of the sale agreement-- this shouldn't diminish the market value of the patents at all, since they couldn't be used against a defunct company anyway, and they can still be used against everyone else in the market (unless the company stands to corner the market in a valuable product, in which case the board would be insane to consider liquidation).
What am I missing?
On the post: California Appeals Court Strikes Down Law That Required DNA Samples From Everyone Arrested
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't have a proper police state without it.
Then I realized that I wasn't sure what I meant. Without a test, I'd have doubts about the lab results-- which is just what the defense would want. If the labs failed the test I would dismiss their results (and the testimony of any expert who vouched for them), but if they passed I'd trust that evidence, so maybe doing the tests would be a bad bet for the defense.
The prosecution could arrange the test (if they actually thought the lab didn't fiddle the results), but at best that would convince a skeptic like me at the cost of raising doubts in the minds of more typical jurors, reminding them that lab results can be false...
Just thinking about lawyers makes me think this way.
On the post: Roscoe P. Coltrane Claims Warner Bros. Stiffed Him On Millions In Merch
Re: James Best is connecting with his fans.
He's not a bumbling idiot?
Well, you've ruined the series for me.
On the post: California Appeals Court Strikes Down Law That Required DNA Samples From Everyone Arrested
Re: Re: Can't have a proper police state without it.
I disagree, but at best you're making a point that out_of_the_blue used the wrong word: he is asserting that the police planted evidence. I believe that OJ was probably guilty, but that doesn't make the police more trustworthy, it doesn't excuse them for tampering with evidence if they did so, and it doesn't make me confident that they wouldn't fabricate evidence against someone who was actually innocent.
If I were on the jury of a case like that, I'd want to see the defense submit some blinded samples to the same lab, just to see whether they can get the same results without any covert hints. (That kind of curiosity is why I'll never be allowed on a jury, and that in turn is why a defender will rarely make that kind of test, for fear of how it might turn out.)
Next >>