It's still really not at all clear to me what their "format" is or how it's in any way unique. Even in their call to attack Ellen, they acknowledged that she may not have "known" that she was copying them but that she needed to be "educated."
I understand the idea that you can have a trademark on certain elements of a show, so while anyone can do a "talent show," having the judges turn their chairs when they like you or stand up and hit a gong if they don't might be elements that can be trademarked. But showing kids something and asking them questions? That is so obvious that Art Linkletter was doing it on the radio in 1945.
Well, no, four of those that signed the letter (Bennet, Portman, Rubio and Wyden) had voted yes for fast track. Their leader, Menendez, didn't even vote on the deal at all! They signed away their integrity with a blank check and they're not getting it back now.
The rest were opposed to the deal from the beginning, so attacking it now isn't about principles, it's just about reminding their base how they voted.
Yeah, I get the feeling Pregerson has the same views about "Super Lawyers" and advertising. Pregerson seemed to be openly mocking Voelker and that got Tallman laughing along. @1:30:48
It's worth watching just to hear judge Pregerson's slow, rambling diversions about the birthplace of Alexander Hamilton and the origin of the phrase "not to put too fine a point on it," among others.
How is using Facebook to communicate any different than using a cell phone (also forbidden). If the story was about prisoners getting solitary for using a cell, I don't think there'd be any outrage. OTOH, why don't they just block Facebook?
To be fair to the judge, the Supreme Court's opinion was so twisted that it's clear to everyone that the Court was tailoring it's decision to wipe Aero out. It doesn't really matter what they do, the Supremes will find a new twist. It's not based on logic or the law, they've already decided...
"Facebook is using federal funds for the research? I doubt it..."
Their study was published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America," so it's safe to assume that there was some federal money involved.
The ironic thing is that a zine dedicated to Lovecraft condemns a TV show for "plagiarizing" ideas from Ligotti, but they're completely thrilled that Ligotti lifts ideas and themes from Lovecraft.
Think of how much business they lost because they didn't get a positive review. Sure, the negative review may have kept some customers away, but a positive review would have actually brought in additional customers. I don't understand why these missing customers weren't included in the calculation of lost (potential) revenue.
If anyone can claim that a negative review cost them money, then clearly a lack of positive reviews is also costing money.
I can't understand why they decided to skip the warrant. They thought about it and they had the time. It doesn't seem likely that a warrant would be denied. And if a warrant WAS denied, then the same court that denied the warrant would have likely been more inclined to have required one. On the other hand, if they DID get a warrant, much of this delay would have been gone and there would be less risk of the defendant getting off. What's the down side with getting a warrant? Why, when they have an abundance of probable cause, do police still try to skip this step?
I don't actually pay anything to receive mail in my mailbox, and I don't know anyone who has been told that they receive too much mail and they're being cut off or charged extra.
Any time someone declares that "you won't find a bigger defender," you can be sure that they are anything but.
The First Amendment was not created to protect the freedom to say what everyone else already agrees with, it was created to protect the unpopular opinions. In this country, there is no such thing as an "illegal political comment."
You can still use those phones: "(B) LIMITATION- The termmobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'." -- Bill Text
"was this the first time this kind of thing has happened in this county?"
KOB4 has your answer: "Another man, another minor traffic violation, another incident with Leo the K-9 and another example of the violation of a man's body." -- http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml
The NSA has the ability to literally monitor every phone call, email and all internet activity of anyone. Abuses are self-reported.
What are the chances that the NSA is NOT monitoring the heads of the committees that fund them? And what are the chances that a career politician (44 years for Feinstein; 19 for Rogers) never made a single transgressions that they would rather keep private?
It seems like the fundamental dispute is that the spooks seem to think Wyden took an oath of allegiance, whereas Wyden believes that he merely took an oath of secrecy.
Ellen
It's still really not at all clear to me what their "format" is or how it's in any way unique. Even in their call to attack Ellen, they acknowledged that she may not have "known" that she was copying them but that she needed to be "educated."
I understand the idea that you can have a trademark on certain elements of a show, so while anyone can do a "talent show," having the judges turn their chairs when they like you or stand up and hit a gong if they don't might be elements that can be trademarked. But showing kids something and asking them questions? That is so obvious that Art Linkletter was doing it on the radio in 1945.
Already sold...
Well, no, four of those that signed the letter (Bennet, Portman, Rubio and Wyden) had voted yes for fast track. Their leader, Menendez, didn't even vote on the deal at all! They signed away their integrity with a blank check and they're not getting it back now.
The rest were opposed to the deal from the beginning, so attacking it now isn't about principles, it's just about reminding their base how they voted.
Re: Super Lawyer not so super
Yeah, I get the feeling Pregerson has the same views about "Super Lawyers" and advertising. Pregerson seemed to be openly mocking Voelker and that got Tallman laughing along. @1:30:48
Judge Pregerson
It's worth watching just to hear judge Pregerson's slow, rambling diversions about the birthplace of Alexander Hamilton and the origin of the phrase "not to put too fine a point on it," among others.
External communications
How is using Facebook to communicate any different than using a cell phone (also forbidden). If the story was about prisoners getting solitary for using a cell, I don't think there'd be any outrage. OTOH, why don't they just block Facebook?
New feature request
Waze should add the ability to report livestock on the road, like horses, cows, and pigs.
Twisted opinion
To be fair to the judge, the Supreme Court's opinion was so twisted that it's clear to everyone that the Court was tailoring it's decision to wipe Aero out. It doesn't really matter what they do, the Supremes will find a new twist. It's not based on logic or the law, they've already decided...
Re: No more A/B testing without IRB approval!
...if you intend to publish a research paper and use federal money (which Facebook did).
Re:
"Facebook wasn't doing its research for the purpose of contributing to generalizable knowledge..."
Facebook collaborated with Cornell University and published a journal article published by the National Academy of Sciences.
Re: Federal Funds?
"Facebook is using federal funds for the research?
I doubt it..."
Their study was published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America," so it's safe to assume that there was some federal money involved.
Re: No, you're wrong, Tim. This is a clear-cut case of plagiarism.
The ironic thing is that a zine dedicated to Lovecraft condemns a TV show for "plagiarizing" ideas from Ligotti, but they're completely thrilled that Ligotti lifts ideas and themes from Lovecraft.
Why not demand a positive review
Think of how much business they lost because they didn't get a positive review. Sure, the negative review may have kept some customers away, but a positive review would have actually brought in additional customers. I don't understand why these missing customers weren't included in the calculation of lost (potential) revenue.
If anyone can claim that a negative review cost them money, then clearly a lack of positive reviews is also costing money.
Just get a warrant...
I can't understand why they decided to skip the warrant. They thought about it and they had the time. It doesn't seem likely that a warrant would be denied. And if a warrant WAS denied, then the same court that denied the warrant would have likely been more inclined to have required one. On the other hand, if they DID get a warrant, much of this delay would have been gone and there would be less risk of the defendant getting off. What's the down side with getting a warrant? Why, when they have an abundance of probable cause, do police still try to skip this step?
Paying for mail
I don't actually pay anything to receive mail in my mailbox, and I don't know anyone who has been told that they receive too much mail and they're being cut off or charged extra.
Re: Great ruling the Court
Any time someone declares that "you won't find a bigger defender," you can be sure that they are anything but.
The First Amendment was not created to protect the freedom to say what everyone else already agrees with, it was created to protect the unpopular opinions. In this country, there is no such thing as an "illegal political comment."
Re: What about those inplane phones that were common in the '90s?
You can still use those phones: "
(B) LIMITATION- The termmobile communications device' does not include a phone installed on an aircraft.'." -- Bill TextRe:
KOB4 has your answer: "Another man, another minor traffic violation, another incident with Leo the K-9 and another example of the violation of a man's body."
-- http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3210356.shtml
Re:
http://ireport.cnn.com/about.jspa
"Everything you see on iReport starts with someone in the CNN audience. The stories here are not edited fact-checked or screened before they post."
Or maybe the NSA isn't really that stupid...
The NSA has the ability to literally monitor every phone call, email and all internet activity of anyone. Abuses are self-reported.
What are the chances that the NSA is NOT monitoring the heads of the committees that fund them? And what are the chances that a career politician (44 years for Feinstein; 19 for Rogers) never made a single transgressions that they would rather keep private?
Kneel before Zod!
It seems like the fundamental dispute is that the spooks seem to think Wyden took an oath of allegiance, whereas Wyden believes that he merely took an oath of secrecy.