Not to mention... this is old hat stuff. What they guy basically 'patented' was playing Trivial Pursuit. You take your icon (Pie) to various websites (locations) and answer trivia questions to get an accessory (pie slice). Some examiner somewhere should be horse whipped for granting that piece of garbage.
"The recent European debate around investment treaties -- the obligations governments accept in them and the methods they provide for dispute settlement -- is not grounded in the facts, and the distortions in this debate cannot be allowed to trump sound policy," she said in a statement."
It's about time someone in a government position openly admitted to all the distortions around ISDS that the US Trade Representative has promulgated. We simply cannot allow these distortions to trump sound policy!
This is twice that it has made major headlines, and the amounts are large enough that people will spread the tail to their friends, especially if their friends have had this problem.
"Hey dude! Dude! You're rich!"
"What the eff you talkin about?"
"Man, that stupid cable company that keeps callin about your brother's account, they ain't allowed to do that, you done tole them a dozen times you ain't him! You can get like, a million bucks in court for them doin that!"
"Holy eff, you serious? I gotta find me a lawyer!"
...if you submit a piece of paperwork in Gilstrap's court, and he doesn't respond in a reasonable time (say, two months), begin calling his office once a month.
When he asks you to show cause why you shouldn't be sited for contempt of court for exparte communications, print out his whiny self serving rant and submit it to show he told you to call his office.
Former ST. Louis Resident (profile), 15 Jul 2015 @ 2:14pm
Having formerly lived in St. Louis...
...I can say that you will never lose money betting on the utter stupidity of the St. Louis County politicians (which, of course, includes the County Prosecutors). One can also usually safely bet money safely that any random cop has a 50/50 chance of being someone who can't handle even the remotest hint that he might not be god incarnate without flying into an absolute rage.
I fully expect the prosecutors and police to pursue this. I fully expect them to look like morons doing it. I fully expect the County to have to pay out taxpayer money to the reporters at the end of it.
Less about transparency, and more about stopping people from pasting together the entire document...
This is almost certainly less about transparency and more about being able to redact once and not have to worry about different people redacting the same document in different ways and thus revealing the entire document after 2-3 requests.
Never attribute to reason and good sense what can be attributed to paranoia and general desire to release the absolute minimum amount of data required.
I wonder if they redacted them due to them being Copyrighted by some other entity, and used the wrong reason out of habit? That at least I could see as a legitimate reason to not distribute them, despite them already being in the wild. As whacky as CR law is nowdays, they could be liable for CR infringement for responding to a FOIA request.
Saw Toobin on CNN talking about this. Apparently, someone screwed up in the contract, and not on Trumps side. I think he's a jerk, and I wouldn't knowingly do business with him, but, in this case, it's entirely possible the contract didn't have an exit (at least, not that covers this).
Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
[quote]Would care to speculate how the contract was breached?[/quote]
Hmm, let's see, I have a contract that says you will show my show on your network. You back out because I say something you don't like, and there's nothing in the contract that says you can do that... breach of contract. As I said before, if you go look at the commentary on the contract, it appears Univision didn't have any 'we can cancel for moral turpitude' clauses. Which means they have no right to cancel the show because Trump is a jerk.
Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
I'm expecting a split decision personally, I think he'll probably win on the breach of contract, but almost certainly loose and lose big on the defamation, as it's nutty. From what I've read from legal commentators who have read the contract, there's no morals clause in the contract (which was stupid on someone's part considering who Trump is).
Yes, Anon Coward, getting him off the street would be a good thing.
Which is why this is so infuriating. Rather than do their job correctly, and make sure they had everything done legally so he would be off the streets for a good stretch, these idiots decided to take shortcuts and violate the law. And because these morons in blue decided they were above the law they are supposed to be enforcing, this guy walks.
There are exceptions to Free Speech and the First Amendment. Normally, I hear that statement trotted out by people who want to limit valid free speech. So it's with some reluctance I actual say it. But it's true, and this is one of those exceptions.
You can't yell fire in a public theater (public safety), you can't claim there is a nuclear device in a stadium when there isn't (public safety), you can't incite to riot (public safety), you can't make credible threats to injure or kill someone (public safety).
Note that all of those restrictions are for reasons of public safety. The idio... officer threatened to shoot anyone who disagreed with him, gave a public location, and did so publicly. This person has a gun, and while I'm fairly certain he was BS'ing, BS'ing about murder isn't something you can do if anyone can conceive of you doing it. Given that police have guns, and are trained to shoot people, it's not hard to conceive of you doing it.
Unlike a random student in a forum about first person shooters saying I'll blow you away, this is a police officer, injecting his threat of violence into an already tense situation via social media. Common Sense says the 14yo who mouths off in the FPS forum isn't a real threat. Common Sense also says a police officer shouldn't be making public threats against anyone people who are protesting that police are too violent.
You go to get in your car. I stand between you and your car, and I tell you I will not let you get into your car, unless you sign a paper saying that I am the best person in the world.
You go to turn your boom box on at the park, and I stop you from touching your boom box, and tell you that you cannot play your boom box unless you sign a piece of paper saying that you agree to my terms regarding when and where you can play that boom box.
Now, have I broken any laws in the above instances? I suspect you will not be surprised at the answer (hint, yes, it's illegal to deprive people of their property, it's called theft, whether you are taking it for yourself, or simply preventing someone from using it). It doesn't matter if the paper I'm having you sign says I'm a nice guy, if I stop you from using your car and force you to sign it, I'm depriving you of your property.
A stupid knee-jerk reaction isn't reason to tilt the scales like this. It's bad journalism.
I'm standing my ground. Until I see proof the seller didn't dupe the customer buying the headphones, I'm not going to toss stones at Velodyne for their reaction.
This article is not like the others (misleading). Velodyne went after what they thought was another store selling its goods, not a customer who is reselling their headphones.
So leave my comprehension out of the discussion. There's clearly nothing wrong with it.
Your comprehension, or rather, lack thereof, is clear above.
The article is about slamming a company for making up it's own laws in a threat letter, and lying publicly.
It doesn't matter if it was reseller or customer using first sale doctrine, which is what I said in my first post (which you obviously failed to read in the same manner you failed to read the article). There is no 'unfair bias'. The article is about a company making up legal argumetns and lying publicly. It doesn't matter if they thought they were lying to a reseller or a customer using first sale doctrine.
The entire point (that would be the thing that wooshed by your head at 200 mph) is that they lied. It doesn't matter what their motive was, they lied. That is the story.
Let us assume the reseller is a fraud. Let's assume he entirely intended to defraud people to make them think the item was new when it wasn't. Let's assume he's a contracted reseller for Velodyne selling things on the sly to pocket some extra profit rather than following his contractual price requirements.
Even if we assume all that, it doesn't make one flying fig of difference.
The entire point is, Velodyne publicly lied about both hiring a law firm, and then lied again about the law, in order to get what it wanted. This shows a superior amount of stupid on their part, we're talking tweeting your own privates stupid.
Nobody should do business with that level of stupid.
It really is questionable whether it was a robbery or not. The tape shows him paying for something, and the cigarellos are placed on the counter by the person behind the counter. Those cigarellos are not kept on the counter, anyone who's been in a convenience store knows they are kept on a shelf way out of reach, for just this reason, so people don't steal them.
From what I've read, what really happened was the underage guy paid for the cigarellos, and the person behind the counter twigged to it too late (likely the owner catching on when the staff didn't), and they tried to take the cigarellos back so they didn't get in trouble for selling them to a minor.
If you pay for something, and then someone tries to take it back, it's highly questionable whether you can call that a robbery. And if it's not a robbery, then pushing the guy isn't felony robbery.
You are confusing Free Speech, with guaranteed labor rights.
Completely different kettle of fish. The issue wasn't free speech. If it was just an employee posting 'These guys are assholes' and they got fired, that is not a free speech issue (and if you work in a right to work state, you're fired with no recourse).
This was protected concerted activity. That's a fancy way of saying, the employees have a guaranteed right to discuss employment related issues with each other without being fired for it (basically). Especially, as the article notes, if there was talk of bringing it up to management during a regular meeting.
On the post: Court Trashes Patent Troll For Bogus Lawsuit Against Zynga; Awards Over $1 Million In Fees & Sanctions
Re:
On the post: EU Proposes New Corporate Sovereignty Court For TAFTA/TTIP; US Not Interested
Re: Re: Finally, someone I can agree with...
IE: I really hadn't thought the tag was needed. :)
On the post: EU Proposes New Corporate Sovereignty Court For TAFTA/TTIP; US Not Interested
Finally, someone I can agree with...
It's about time someone in a government position openly admitted to all the distortions around ISDS that the US Trade Representative has promulgated. We simply cannot allow these distortions to trump sound policy!
On the post: Comcast Sued For Robocalling Woman 153 Times Over A Bill She'd Already Paid
RE: Black Bellamy & What Happened Twice
"Hey dude! Dude! You're rich!"
"What the eff you talkin about?"
"Man, that stupid cable company that keeps callin about your brother's account, they ain't allowed to do that, you done tole them a dozen times you ain't him! You can get like, a million bucks in court for them doin that!"
"Holy eff, you serious? I gotta find me a lawyer!"
On the post: East Texas Court Finally Issues Newegg Order Two Years Late; Judge Upset About How Newegg Handled Things
Simple solution going forward...
When he asks you to show cause why you shouldn't be sited for contempt of court for exparte communications, print out his whiny self serving rant and submit it to show he told you to call his office.
Problem solved.
On the post: St. Louis County Still Considering Bringing Trespassing Charges Against Journalists Police Arrested In Ferguson
Having formerly lived in St. Louis...
I fully expect the prosecutors and police to pursue this. I fully expect them to look like morons doing it. I fully expect the County to have to pay out taxpayer money to the reporters at the end of it.
On the post: Government Displeases Journalists Who Rely On FOIA Requests With Plan To Release Documents 'To All' Simultaneously
Less about transparency, and more about stopping people from pasting together the entire document...
Never attribute to reason and good sense what can be attributed to paranoia and general desire to release the absolute minimum amount of data required.
On the post: FBI Withholds 69 Pages of TrueCrypt-Related Documents, Most Of Which Can Already Be Found Online
Copyright?
On the post: Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Univision Is Absolutely Hilarious
Re: Re: Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
Just the first link I found on a search for 'Toobin Trump Contract Univision'.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/06/30/cnns-toobin-on-trump-suit-no-provision-for-univ ision-to-withdraw-not-a-frivolous-lawsuit/
Saw Toobin on CNN talking about this. Apparently, someone screwed up in the contract, and not on Trumps side. I think he's a jerk, and I wouldn't knowingly do business with him, but, in this case, it's entirely possible the contract didn't have an exit (at least, not that covers this).
On the post: Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Univision Is Absolutely Hilarious
Re: Re: Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
Hmm, let's see, I have a contract that says you will show my show on your network. You back out because I say something you don't like, and there's nothing in the contract that says you can do that... breach of contract. As I said before, if you go look at the commentary on the contract, it appears Univision didn't have any 'we can cancel for moral turpitude' clauses. Which means they have no right to cancel the show because Trump is a jerk.
On the post: Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Univision Is Absolutely Hilarious
Defamation insane, breach of contract, probably not so much...
On the post: Court Shuts Down NYPD's Argument That When Searching For Black Male Suspects, Any Black Male Will Do
RE: Off the streets a good thing
Which is why this is so infuriating. Rather than do their job correctly, and make sure they had everything done legally so he would be off the streets for a good stretch, these idiots decided to take shortcuts and violate the law. And because these morons in blue decided they were above the law they are supposed to be enforcing, this guy walks.
On the post: Librarians Are Continuing To Defend Open Access To The Web As A Public Service
Agreed, thanks to those who stand against censorship
On the post: Officer Put On Leave For Tweeting To Bait Public Into Violence
Re: Balance on a slippery slope....
You can't yell fire in a public theater (public safety), you can't claim there is a nuclear device in a stadium when there isn't (public safety), you can't incite to riot (public safety), you can't make credible threats to injure or kill someone (public safety).
Note that all of those restrictions are for reasons of public safety. The idio... officer threatened to shoot anyone who disagreed with him, gave a public location, and did so publicly. This person has a gun, and while I'm fairly certain he was BS'ing, BS'ing about murder isn't something you can do if anyone can conceive of you doing it. Given that police have guns, and are trained to shoot people, it's not hard to conceive of you doing it.
Unlike a random student in a forum about first person shooters saying I'll blow you away, this is a police officer, injecting his threat of violence into an already tense situation via social media. Common Sense says the 14yo who mouths off in the FPS forum isn't a real threat. Common Sense also says a police officer shouldn't be making public threats against anyone people who are protesting that police are too violent.
On the post: Nintendo Bricks Wii U Consoles Unless Owners Agree To New EULA
RE: Analogies
You go to turn your boom box on at the park, and I stop you from touching your boom box, and tell you that you cannot play your boom box unless you sign a piece of paper saying that you agree to my terms regarding when and where you can play that boom box.
Now, have I broken any laws in the above instances? I suspect you will not be surprised at the answer (hint, yes, it's illegal to deprive people of their property, it's called theft, whether you are taking it for yourself, or simply preventing someone from using it). It doesn't matter if the paper I'm having you sign says I'm a nice guy, if I stop you from using your car and force you to sign it, I'm depriving you of your property.
On the post: Audio Equipment Manufacturer Threatens Amazon Reseller With 'Mandatory Jail Time'
RE:Violynne
Your comprehension, or rather, lack thereof, is clear above.
The article is about slamming a company for making up it's own laws in a threat letter, and lying publicly.
It doesn't matter if it was reseller or customer using first sale doctrine, which is what I said in my first post (which you obviously failed to read in the same manner you failed to read the article). There is no 'unfair bias'. The article is about a company making up legal argumetns and lying publicly. It doesn't matter if they thought they were lying to a reseller or a customer using first sale doctrine.
The entire point (that would be the thing that wooshed by your head at 200 mph) is that they lied. It doesn't matter what their motive was, they lied. That is the story.
On the post: Audio Equipment Manufacturer Threatens Amazon Reseller With 'Mandatory Jail Time'
RE:Violynne
Let us assume the reseller is a fraud. Let's assume he entirely intended to defraud people to make them think the item was new when it wasn't. Let's assume he's a contracted reseller for Velodyne selling things on the sly to pocket some extra profit rather than following his contractual price requirements.
Even if we assume all that, it doesn't make one flying fig of difference.
The entire point is, Velodyne publicly lied about both hiring a law firm, and then lied again about the law, in order to get what it wanted. This shows a superior amount of stupid on their part, we're talking tweeting your own privates stupid.
Nobody should do business with that level of stupid.
On the post: Ferguson PD Lies About Why It Released Videotape Of Store Robbery, Lies Some More When Confronted With The Facts
Robbery in Question
From what I've read, what really happened was the underage guy paid for the cigarellos, and the person behind the counter twigged to it too late (likely the owner catching on when the staff didn't), and they tried to take the cigarellos back so they didn't get in trouble for selling them to a minor.
If you pay for something, and then someone tries to take it back, it's highly questionable whether you can call that a robbery. And if it's not a robbery, then pushing the guy isn't felony robbery.
On the post: You Can't Be Fired For 'Liking' A Colleague Calling Your Bosses 'Assholes' On Facebook
Re: This adds more confusion than it clears up
Completely different kettle of fish. The issue wasn't free speech. If it was just an employee posting 'These guys are assholes' and they got fired, that is not a free speech issue (and if you work in a right to work state, you're fired with no recourse).
This was protected concerted activity. That's a fancy way of saying, the employees have a guaranteed right to discuss employment related issues with each other without being fired for it (basically). Especially, as the article notes, if there was talk of bringing it up to management during a regular meeting.
Next >>