That’s when the ads flow up to the main page.
I’d say this sounds like a future episode of Black Mirror, but they already did it in 15 million merits. I can’t imagine that the character Bing paid for all those screens, right? The screens are free, you pay to turn them off or skip the ads.
This is the darkest timeline.
I think you have a point, Mike, but I think one difference between CA and FL is the that CA is "choosing not to buy something" while FL "took something valuable away."
As I understand it, CA is choosing to wind down their commercial relationship with Walgreens because of their stance. Assuming the governor is exercising his authority properly in making the decision, I think that's fine. Walgreens made a choice, CA responded by taking their business elsewhere, and voters can consider this at the ballot box.
FL, on the other hand, took something of value from Disney in response to their position. Even if Reedy Creek's restructuring ultimately has no effect on the development and financing that Disney would have done, the fact that Governor now makes the district's Board appointments distinguishes the two situations. It's something valuable that was taken away.
If Newsom said that CA was going to fine Walgreens, refuse to pay outstanding bills, or confiscate stores, the two situations would be analogous. If DeSantis determined that the state government would no longer host conventions at Disney, that would be a similar case.
Newsom is choosing not to do further business with Walgreens. DeSantis took away something from Disney.
Additionally, DeSantis' actions don't appear to be based on principle. He and the FL lege didn't eliminate all the improvement districts, only the ones that they were mad at. I assume that Newsom will make a similar boycott of any other pharmacy that adopts Walgreens' position; evidence of a clear difference.
Let's treat other Amendments the way Rubio insists we treat the 2nd.
“If we are going to infringe on the [Amendment_Number] Ammendment, it has to be a policy that will work,” Rubio said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press
I was incensed when my son told me about this story. Not only because I disagreed with Smith's position, but the fact that he's proposing this measure only for when _Colts players_ protest, not when the visiting team does.
For argument's sake, pretend that there is some justifiable need and authority for this law. Taking a knee during the anthem is so harmful that it warrants penalizing the team in order to protect the citizens of Indiana.
Taking all that as true, what possible justification is there for only mandating a refund when the home team kneels? Isn't it just as disrespectful, just as harmful, when the visiting team does?
It needs no deep analysis to see why this is BS, but the ridiculousness of this posture is astounding.
"...if the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table" indeed.
Footnote 1: "Here the court has not set any such briefing schedule."
IOW, there wasn't a formal briefing schedule, but this brief is late.
"Further, although there are no District Court rules" [on the length of a brief]
IOW, there wasn't a length limit, but this brief is too long.
Maybe Paramount has the better of the argument, and is correctly applying the standards of the appellate court to say that the amicus brief is unsuitable. But it sure sounds like table-pounding to me.
Why c&d now?
Well, you know the old aphorism: “20 years ago is the best time to enforce a trademark. The second best time is now”
That’s when the ads flow up to the main page. I’d say this sounds like a future episode of Black Mirror, but they already did it in 15 million merits. I can’t imagine that the character Bing paid for all those screens, right? The screens are free, you pay to turn them off or skip the ads. This is the darkest timeline.
Boycott vs. Seizure
I think you have a point, Mike, but I think one difference between CA and FL is the that CA is "choosing not to buy something" while FL "took something valuable away." As I understand it, CA is choosing to wind down their commercial relationship with Walgreens because of their stance. Assuming the governor is exercising his authority properly in making the decision, I think that's fine. Walgreens made a choice, CA responded by taking their business elsewhere, and voters can consider this at the ballot box. FL, on the other hand, took something of value from Disney in response to their position. Even if Reedy Creek's restructuring ultimately has no effect on the development and financing that Disney would have done, the fact that Governor now makes the district's Board appointments distinguishes the two situations. It's something valuable that was taken away. If Newsom said that CA was going to fine Walgreens, refuse to pay outstanding bills, or confiscate stores, the two situations would be analogous. If DeSantis determined that the state government would no longer host conventions at Disney, that would be a similar case. Newsom is choosing not to do further business with Walgreens. DeSantis took away something from Disney. Additionally, DeSantis' actions don't appear to be based on principle. He and the FL lege didn't eliminate all the improvement districts, only the ones that they were mad at. I assume that Newsom will make a similar boycott of any other pharmacy that adopts Walgreens' position; evidence of a clear difference.
Apply Rubio's guideline to infringement
Let's treat other Amendments the way Rubio insists we treat the 2nd.
I'm not excited to encourage any infringement of any Amendments, but I'd like to see this same bar applied when:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/rancher-finds-creepy-and-un-american-spy-cam-tied-to-his-tree-sues-feds/
[I know that last one's a stretch, but I'm amused to see a situation where someone could arguably plead the 3rd.]
Smith wouldn't know a principal if it bit him on the butt
I was incensed when my son told me about this story. Not only because I disagreed with Smith's position, but the fact that he's proposing this measure only for when _Colts players_ protest, not when the visiting team does.
For argument's sake, pretend that there is some justifiable need and authority for this law. Taking a knee during the anthem is so harmful that it warrants penalizing the team in order to protect the citizens of Indiana.
Taking all that as true, what possible justification is there for only mandating a refund when the home team kneels? Isn't it just as disrespectful, just as harmful, when the visiting team does?
It needs no deep analysis to see why this is BS, but the ridiculousness of this posture is astounding.
Re: Bull
"Get Tea then Get No Tea"
Re:
Exactly. NYC should rescind the temporary permit and give him 24 hours to remove the statue or it gets displayed at the bottom of the Hudson.
New headline proposal:
Artist sues because, "Someone else must be making money and I'm not getting a cut!"
"...if the facts and the law are against you, pound on the table" indeed.
IOW, there wasn't a formal briefing schedule, but this brief is late.
IOW, there wasn't a length limit, but this brief is too long.
Maybe Paramount has the better of the argument, and is correctly applying the standards of the appellate court to say that the amicus brief is unsuitable. But it sure sounds like table-pounding to me.
"Canine Officer Hill"
Was I the only one who misinterpreted these two descriptions:
to imagine a German Shepherd on the stand:
"Did you witness the consent by Estes?"
"Woof, Woof"
"Good boy!"