In Washington DC it's separately illegal for open carry and concealed carry. One lawsuit challenging this just passed five years without a ruling.
There are other places where open carry is illegal and concealed carry requires a permit, with no permits actually being granted. Or only being granted to political/government insiders such as retired police officers.
�First of all, it wasn�t a Pop-Tart,� she said. �It was a breakfast pastry."
If that's your lead-off point, you must not understand the issue.
This would have OK as "A final, irrelevant, trivial note: it wasn't a Pop-Tart (R)(TM)(C). It was another type of breakfast pastry."
Best followed by "Our change in policy covers all food, regardless of meal, and everything that not actually a weapon. As a new policy, to avoid the clear mistakes made y blindly following the previous flawed policy, we will issue advisory notes for any realistic imitation weapons before taking further action."
As noted above, taking their claimed "licensing" at face value could prove interesting in the case of theft, loss or simply misplacing the text.
Presumably the publisher intends to sue Amazon/FleaBay/seller for selling stolen property if a used copy comes up for sale. But not every used copy will be stolen property, and not every locale has laws that support such a suit.
One situation is that insured personal property is lost, the insurance company pays off the claim, and the property is later recovered. In most states insurance companies have clear title to the property. Sure, they'll often work with the insured to sort things out, but long ago they put laws in place to protect their interests. They paid for the property. It's now theirs. Sure, it might have some ridiculous text inside. But that's not their problem. It looks like a book, smells like a book, and quacks like a book. It's a book. They know how to liquidate books. Just like stolen furniture, or paintings, or silverware that was recovered: you sell it.
If the negative reviews are questionable or bogus, I then consider the product features.
I was recently looking at waffle makers. Many of the positive reviews were "I like waffles" or "made a great gift". Perhaps those are useful if you are clueless about food or what makes a good gift (perfume == good gift, deodorant == bad gift). But really.. no, useless.
The negative reviews are the ones that point out the flaws. Getting one star for an opened package or bad shipping is easily distinguished from one star for a non-stick coating that flakes off starting with the first use. Things like "awkward to store" and "ugly" are even better, because I can decide if they are important to me.
When a company can suppress or promote reviews, I can't trust anything. They are likely trying to hide substantial flaws, and I can't tell if they succeeded.
It's very clear that the guy was coached by his lawyer, and was being evasive.
Someone in the room was a moron, and I think that it was the lawyer. He coached the witness on how to be evasive and misleading: ask them to define terms, and try to get them to over-define terms.
This strategy could work, in narrow contexts. But not when it comes to straight-forward questions about everyday items.
The opposing lawyer could have handled it better. He was too late switching tactics. If he had asked the witness what he thought a photocopier was a question earlier, he would have him on record.
Not that it would be much different: any judge reading this would see a witness unwilling to answer a simple question.
I take this as 'We don't control it or profit from it, so we are trying to downplay its importance.'
Remember, they are in competition with social networking sites for customers. No, not viewers. That's the product. Real, paying customers -- advertisers.
It's really easy to carbon with plants and biofuels.
The growing plant captures carbon. Burning the plant or letting it rot releases exactly the same amount of carbon. No more, and no less.
There is no magic. No 'carbon capture'. No disappearing carbon.
Burning coal is taking solid carbon and releasing it as CO2. Burning oil and gas is taking hydrocarbons and releasing somewhat less CO2 for the same energy. Not tremendously less, just somewhat less. Both are taking carbon previously tucked safely away, and putting it into the atmosphere.
A police chief in a small town is hardly at the top of his profession, nor likely to well versed in constitutional nuances. The supremes are well aware that what they say and do will influence the country for decades or centuries, unlike a police chief covering for the missteps of his employees.
After reading the story and these comments, I have to wonder if...
"whoosh"
It may be that the justices are intended their statements to be subtle humor, as well as an exploration of the case merits.
Pretty much everyone here is scoffing at the idea that complying == circumventing. The justices are smart people that have reached the top of their profession, after having spent their entire career focused on the law. They couldn't possibly have missed this fallacy.
The only logical answer is that this is dry humor. Followed by 'give us wording that makes what Aereo is doing clearly illegal, without making record stores century-old criminal enterprises'.
A bit of background: when a CPA specifically notes that the report they prepared does not meet GAAP, that strongly suggests that the books are crooked. They have prepared them to the client's specification, but won't stand behind the number.
Public companies often report non-GAAP results alongside GAAP, but only when they believe that it better reflects their business. And the GAAP numbers are the ones that are legally binding on the accountants.
I can't see a judge accepting Steele's argument "You didn't specifically ask for GAAP numbers". If you submit a report from a CPA, that's what is expected.
I wonder how the discovery spat will play out. It appears to be a serious breech of ethics.
Steele could have passed it off as a mistake, then asked for a call to schedule a conference to discuss, then asked the court to schedule a hearing for clarification. All semi-legitimate when viewed in isolation. But he instead went for the "People call me Dick" email reply. It was intended to infuriate the recipient (which it clearly did -- and that might be the only thing that saves Steele), but also risks infuriating a judge.
Unrelated: I'm a bit suspicious about the timing of the "email account hacking". Superficially it appears that Nazaire's machine got a virus and started sending out spam. This could be the reality, or just be an excuse for losing incriminating email. Only select (beneficial) emails will survive.
The questions asked suggest that the justices understand most of the issues.
You might argue that they don't understand "the cloud", but you won't get much agreement among even cloud-y vendors about what "the cloud" is either. When you get up close (especially when you get up close) it's all fog.
Some of the questions did border on suggesting they must be guilty of something, since they went to so much effort to "get around" the law. But I don't believe that the justices are actually thinking that.
I tend to think that they are thinking "They have gone to absurd lengths to fit within (between) the current law. You want us to make what Aereo is doing illegal. But the big hammer you are asking for would make a large set of well-established activities illegal. What words would you use to differentiate this situation from others? If you can't put down in words how Aereo violated the law, but record stores don't, how can we possibly decide it's wrong?"
I can't see the justices granting cert in this case, just to issue a highly conditional opinion. "It depends..." is the worst possible outcome for progress -- something they seem sensitive to.
Don't use Dr. Who as an example of prior art. He picked up the scarf as a vintage clothing store specializing the very best copyrighted designs of centuries earlier.
Irregular width stripes were a innovative design breakthrough.
To amplify on the "investment" aspect of the shake-down: it's a tax-advantaged way for the companies to pay, and it doesn't directly impact the P&L statements.
I've long been surprised at general belief that constitutional protections aren't applied to non-citizens. The wording of the Constitution is unambiguous that the rights are Natural Rights: they aren't "granted" by the government, but given by nature/god to all humans.
The obvious conclusion is that non-citizens are not human.
This might be the best result under the circumstances.
Bouncing the case on venue instantly kills the conviction. Almost any other reversal requires re-doing part of the trail, which is expensive, time consuming, and risks another bogus outcome.
The footnote is a strong hint to the prosecutors that they were wrong, and should not re-file charges in a different venue. They can save face by claiming "a technicality". (But I'll go with 'Technically correct, the best kind of correct.')
Well, Vanity Fair is part of the New York liberal media. And we all know that they are all secretly Reds.
And Snowden, well, there is no proof that he is working with the Russians. But there is no proof he isn't. So he must be. He definitely can see Russia from his back porch. And seeing Russia from your back porch makes you guilty. Or a viable candidate for president. Or something.
1. The judge shouldn't have taken judicial notice of other cases. (Those facts should be ignored.) 2. The ruling relies on facts that are not on the record. (See point 1.)
There was an alternative argument:
1. No specific attorney acted improperly on their own. 2. Responsibility for the judgement should have been apportioned according to blame. (Which would have allowed pressing point 1.)
For this latter argument to work, it was vitally important that Voelker 'know' as little as possible about the relationship between Prenda/Alpha/Duffy/Steele/Hansmeier. Even if that led to awkward moments.
I would say that Voelker played his part well. No new information was revealed. The claim of no facts / no supporting record was pressed. The question of adverse inference from the many non-substantive and evasive responses, and conflicting responses only came up briefly.
On the post: Florida Lawmakers Aim To Restore Childrens' Rights To Openly Carry Pop Tart 'Guns' On Campus
I assume that question is a troll.
Many places.
In Washington DC it's separately illegal for open carry and concealed carry. One lawsuit challenging this just passed five years without a ruling.
There are other places where open carry is illegal and concealed carry requires a permit, with no permits actually being granted. Or only being granted to political/government insiders such as retired police officers.
On the post: Florida Lawmakers Aim To Restore Childrens' Rights To Openly Carry Pop Tart 'Guns' On Campus
�First of all, it wasn�t a Pop-Tart,� she said. �It was a breakfast pastry."
If that's your lead-off point, you must not understand the issue.
This would have OK as
"A final, irrelevant, trivial note: it wasn't a Pop-Tart (R)(TM)(C). It was another type of breakfast pastry."
Best followed by "Our change in policy covers all food, regardless of meal, and everything that not actually a weapon. As a new policy, to avoid the clear mistakes made y blindly following the previous flawed policy, we will issue advisory notes for any realistic imitation weapons before taking further action."
On the post: US Patent Office Grants 'Photography Against A White Background' Patent To Amazon
If only we had photographic evidence of prior art
On the post: Publisher 'DRMs' Physical Legal Textbook About 'Property,' Undermines Property And First Sale Concepts
Presumably the publisher intends to sue Amazon/FleaBay/seller for selling stolen property if a used copy comes up for sale. But not every used copy will be stolen property, and not every locale has laws that support such a suit.
One situation is that insured personal property is lost, the insurance company pays off the claim, and the property is later recovered. In most states insurance companies have clear title to the property. Sure, they'll often work with the insured to sort things out, but long ago they put laws in place to protect their interests. They paid for the property. It's now theirs. Sure, it might have some ridiculous text inside. But that's not their problem. It looks like a book, smells like a book, and quacks like a book. It's a book. They know how to liquidate books. Just like stolen furniture, or paintings, or silverware that was recovered: you sell it.
On the post: Medialink Threatens Customer With Lawsuit For Writing A Negative Amazon Review
If the negative reviews are questionable or bogus, I then consider the product features.
I was recently looking at waffle makers. Many of the positive reviews were "I like waffles" or "made a great gift". Perhaps those are useful if you are clueless about food or what makes a good gift (perfume == good gift, deodorant == bad gift). But really.. no, useless.
The negative reviews are the ones that point out the flaws. Getting one star for an opened package or bad shipping is easily distinguished from one star for a non-stick coating that flakes off starting with the first use. Things like "awkward to store" and "ugly" are even better, because I can decide if they are important to me.
When a company can suppress or promote reviews, I can't trust anything. They are likely trying to hide substantial flaws, and I can't tell if they succeeded.
On the post: Brilliant Reporting: NYT Recreates Wacky Deposition Over Definition Of A Photocopier
Someone in the room was a moron, and I think that it was the lawyer. He coached the witness on how to be evasive and misleading: ask them to define terms, and try to get them to over-define terms.
This strategy could work, in narrow contexts. But not when it comes to straight-forward questions about everyday items.
The opposing lawyer could have handled it better. He was too late switching tactics. If he had asked the witness what he thought a photocopier was a question earlier, he would have him on record.
Not that it would be much different: any judge reading this would see a witness unwilling to answer a simple question.
On the post: NBC Insists Twitter Is Useless Because Not Enough People Tweeted During The Olympics... Which NBC Made Difficult To Watch Online
Remember, they are in competition with social networking sites for customers. No, not viewers. That's the product. Real, paying customers -- advertisers.
On the post: DailyDirt: The Growing Pains Of Biofuels
The growing plant captures carbon. Burning the plant or letting it rot releases exactly the same amount of carbon. No more, and no less.
There is no magic. No 'carbon capture'. No disappearing carbon.
Burning coal is taking solid carbon and releasing it as CO2. Burning oil and gas is taking hydrocarbons and releasing somewhat less CO2 for the same energy. Not tremendously less, just somewhat less. Both are taking carbon previously tucked safely away, and putting it into the atmosphere.
On the post: Why Do So Many People Describe Aereo 'Complying' With Copyright Law As The Company 'Circumventing' Copyright Law?
On the post: Why Do So Many People Describe Aereo 'Complying' With Copyright Law As The Company 'Circumventing' Copyright Law?
"whoosh"
It may be that the justices are intended their statements to be subtle humor, as well as an exploration of the case merits.
Pretty much everyone here is scoffing at the idea that complying == circumventing. The justices are smart people that have reached the top of their profession, after having spent their entire career focused on the law. They couldn't possibly have missed this fallacy.
The only logical answer is that this is dry humor. Followed by 'give us wording that makes what Aereo is doing clearly illegal, without making record stores century-old criminal enterprises'.
On the post: Chutzpah: John Steele To Court: What, You Think I Would Lie, Cheat And Break The Law? Come On!
Public companies often report non-GAAP results alongside GAAP, but only when they believe that it better reflects their business. And the GAAP numbers are the ones that are legally binding on the accountants.
I can't see a judge accepting Steele's argument "You didn't specifically ask for GAAP numbers". If you submit a report from a CPA, that's what is expected.
On the post: Chutzpah: John Steele To Court: What, You Think I Would Lie, Cheat And Break The Law? Come On!
It appears to be a serious breech of ethics.
Steele could have passed it off as a mistake, then asked for a call to schedule a conference to discuss, then asked the court to schedule a hearing for clarification. All semi-legitimate when viewed in isolation. But he instead went for the "People call me Dick" email reply. It was intended to infuriate the recipient (which it clearly did -- and that might be the only thing that saves Steele), but also risks infuriating a judge.
Unrelated: I'm a bit suspicious about the timing of the "email account hacking". Superficially it appears that Nazaire's machine got a virus and started sending out spam. This could be the reality, or just be an excuse for losing incriminating email. Only select (beneficial) emails will survive.
On the post: Supreme Court Discussion In Aereo: At Least The Justices Recognize The Harm They Might Do
You might argue that they don't understand "the cloud", but you won't get much agreement among even cloud-y vendors about what "the cloud" is either. When you get up close (especially when you get up close) it's all fog.
Some of the questions did border on suggesting they must be guilty of something, since they went to so much effort to "get around" the law. But I don't believe that the justices are actually thinking that.
I tend to think that they are thinking "They have gone to absurd lengths to fit within (between) the current law. You want us to make what Aereo is doing illegal. But the big hammer you are asking for would make a large set of well-established activities illegal. What words would you use to differentiate this situation from others? If you can't put down in words how Aereo violated the law, but record stores don't, how can we possibly decide it's wrong?"
I can't see the justices granting cert in this case, just to issue a highly conditional opinion. "It depends..." is the worst possible outcome for progress -- something they seem sensitive to.
On the post: Textile Company Drags A Bunch Of Clothing Companies To Court Over Copyrighted Stripe Pattern
Irregular width stripes were a innovative design breakthrough.
On the post: Microsoft And Sony Double Down On Patent Trolling; Dump More Cash Into Intellectual Ventures
On the post: Find The Big Fib In The NSA's Lack Of Concern For Foreigners
The obvious conclusion is that non-citizens are not human.
On the post: Appeals Court Reverses Weev Conviction For Incorrect Venue, Avoids Bigger CFAA Questions
Bouncing the case on venue instantly kills the conviction. Almost any other reversal requires re-doing part of the trail, which is expensive, time consuming, and risks another bogus outcome.
The footnote is a strong hint to the prosecutors that they were wrong, and should not re-file charges in a different venue. They can save face by claiming "a technicality".
(But I'll go with 'Technically correct, the best kind of correct.')
On the post: German Town Shoots Down Father's Plan To Name His Son 'Wikileaks'
Adjust for your language/locale.
A child's name isn't a billboard. It's really just something easy to remember until they are old enough to memorize their social security number.
On the post: Snowden Says NSA Is Lying When It Claims He Didn't Raise Concerns Through The Proper Channels
And Snowden, well, there is no proof that he is working with the Russians. But there is no proof he isn't. So he must be. He definitely can see Russia from his back porch. And seeing Russia from your back porch makes you guilty. Or a viable candidate for president. Or something.
On the post: Appeals Court Not At All Impressed By Prenda's Appeal
1. The judge shouldn't have taken judicial notice of other cases. (Those facts should be ignored.)
2. The ruling relies on facts that are not on the record. (See point 1.)
There was an alternative argument:
1. No specific attorney acted improperly on their own.
2. Responsibility for the judgement should have been apportioned according to blame. (Which would have allowed pressing point 1.)
For this latter argument to work, it was vitally important that Voelker 'know' as little as possible about the relationship between Prenda/Alpha/Duffy/Steele/Hansmeier. Even if that led to awkward moments.
I would say that Voelker played his part well. No new information was revealed. The claim of no facts / no supporting record was pressed. The question of adverse inference from the many non-substantive and evasive responses, and conflicting responses only came up briefly.
Next >>