raging.alcoholic’s Techdirt Profile


About raging.alcoholic

I write a blog on alcoholism. It is sort of a laymans dictionary. If you want to know if you are an alcholic, or how to help an alcoholic, etc. Raging Alcoholic is a good place to start.
I started this when I first started getting sober. I saw that no one was serving this niche and began to try.

It will answer about 80% of the question people have on alcoholism. I link out to other recognized authorities for the really in-depth stuff.

raging.alcoholic’s Comments comment rss

  • May 1st, 2014 @ 6:40pm


    I don't know who Mr.Lessig is but I like his idea. Even if the idea fails but forces campaign finance reform it is good.
    I am going to support this. I don't want to have to say I could of helped. I want to be able to say I did help.

  • Apr 29th, 2014 @ 10:25am

    family harmony (as Mark Noo)

    Tort law has special protections concerning family members and their ability to sue.
    e.g. Suzy(sister) tells Johnny (brother) she is going to kill him and then hits him.
    If they were not brother and sister this would be the tort of both assault and battery.
    However, courts don't allow for this for the obvious reason that lawsuits upset family harmony.

    There is no way to know what they are going to do here but I assume they will come up with some sort of similar ruling.
    The divorce case is something different. Family harmony is already destroyed.

  • Apr 29th, 2014 @ 10:17am

    (untitled comment) (as Mark Noo)

    ESI or electronically stored information is always part of the discovery process if it will lead to evidence that will be admissible in court.
    You have to give any information up that you have control over.
    These rules help us do everything from collecting taxed to closing down sites with child pornography.

    If the rules of another government do not forbid your giving the information up, then the court can compel you. If the foreign countries rules do forbid it, than you cannot be compelled because it is beyond your control. The court isn't going to require you to break laws, treaties, etc.

    That is what I remember from intellectual property. A real lawyer can probably clear up the matter in a paragraph or two.

    We do not want people in American committing crimes and havign a sort of "immunity" because they store their information in another country.

    We have treaties that allow for this type of thing with most of the countries we trade with.

    We can extradite criminals from most of those countries to. e.g. a criminal who flees to Canada can frustrate extradition if the United States penalty is death. If not, the Canadians will usually hand them right over.

    I feel your frustration with the American government. They cannot keep their own house in order, why do they get to tell other people what to do? I don't blame you but this is a good rule. We don't want justice prevented because their server is in another country.

    If they have a right to write things to a server in a foreign country than they have a right to retrieve that information and present it to the court.

  • Apr 28th, 2014 @ 11:52pm

    Puritans (as Mark Noo)

    I like your analogy. To further the cause I would like to point out the Puritans.

    One of the reasons the Puritans fled to the New World was religious freedom. Once they arrived in the New World they promptly began putting anyone who disagreed with them in the "stocks" or worse.

  • Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 6:18pm

    Patents cost money (as Mark1)

    I find it hard to believe they (American Express) would go through the process of getting a patent and pay the fees unless American Express thought it had some value. I assume this is a process patent. The process is checking the code on the back with purpose of increasing security.
    There are nearly endless reasons to deny a patent. So why did the USPTO grant the patent in the first place. I don't get it but I do have faith that the judge knew and did the right thing.

  • Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 6:11pm

    Re: invaliatin patents (as Mark1)

    The USPTO goes through an extensive research process. They try to deny patents because it gives the patent holder the right to disallow anyone from using the patented material. This is the government giving the inventor a monopoly on the patented material. Getting a patent isn't easy.

  • Apr 17th, 2014 @ 8:27pm

    They would be stupid not to (as Mark1)

    Patton spent a lot of time reading Rommel's papers on tank warfare because he wanted to get insight into the man.
    Stormin Norman of Iraq fame found out as much as he could about Saddam Hussein. In a TV program he said he did this. Gen. Norman read an account that Saddam would not come out of a surrounded bunker until he was down to 2 or 3 bullets. That told the General that Saddam was not likely to give up.

    Any information on a persons temperment, political affiliations, resolve, level of intelligence is all useful.

    Not finding out as much as you can about your enemy is dereliction of duty.
    I would have asked for their social media information too.

  • Apr 17th, 2014 @ 8:06pm

    (untitled comment) (as Mark1)

    Saline solution - suspended animation. That is amazing.

    If anyone is going to make it possible for me to live forever they will need to create a time machine too.

    I'm 45 years old, overweight, and a bunch of other stuff. Who wants to be preserved in this condition?

    That was a cool post. I had no idea that kind of stuff was being done.

  • Apr 17th, 2014 @ 7:38pm

    32 members of congress (as Mark1)

    You have to really owe someone to do something like this. 32 members of Congress kissing Eli Lilli's ass. Shameful

  • Apr 17th, 2014 @ 7:33pm

    Nike lawyers (as Mark1)

    I live in Portland Oregon and know one of their attorneys. His job is leasing store space for Nike outlets but there is an army of lawyers at Nike. Nike would not be suing unless they thought they had a chance of success.
    The post you wrote sounds like a pretty open and shut case but, there is probably a lot more going on than what we know right now.
    I would expect to hear a lot more about the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant.

  • Apr 16th, 2014 @ 8:40pm

    SCOTUS blog (as Mark1)

    So it looks SCOTUSblog is going with an equal protection argument. Or maybe it is a civil rights discrimination kind of case? How about unfair trade practices. SCOTUS is putting barriers in their way that other people don't have to worry about.
    I love the law. So many ways to attack the opposition.

    These guys manage to talk about legal matters in a way that an intelligent layman can understand. They should be getting preferential treatment

  • Apr 10th, 2014 @ 7:58pm

    Ethical duty of candor (as Mark1)

    I assume they are explaining this to a judge. Their lawyers have an ethical duty of candor to the court. What they said is "highly" misleading.
    Has anyone challenged over this point.
    I also assume they are telling this to a federal judge. Fedral judges have lifetime appointments. You don't fool around with them.
    Report their attorney to the state bar. I'm sure they would want to know about this.
    Sometimes they won't take action without a complaint. Give them on so they can do their job.
    I absolutely loathe Comcast.

  • Apr 6th, 2014 @ 8:33pm

    (untitled comment) (as Schleprock)

    I share your frustration with a addiction community that doesn't want to have its hands tied by something like a solid, widely acknowledged definition for what addiction is and that also cannot determine the best way to treat the addiction.
    No wonder the rest of America doesn't understand. In some instances a few addiction appear to be fabricated out of thin air.

    The DSM now has a better definition but it still doesn't jibe with the ASAM (American Society of Addiction Medicine) definition.

  • Apr 6th, 2014 @ 8:17pm

    (untitled comment) (as Schleprock)

    I thought if a party willfully destroyed evidence that judges generally instruct juries to assume the evidence was damning. I thought that if it was a willful act this was a non-rebuttable assumption.

  • Apr 6th, 2014 @ 8:05pm

    Re: useful idiots (as Schleprock)

    America is like a person who has had a few too many divorces. You don't marry them, they just don't get the concept. Their promises are nothing and their loyalty is sorely lacking.