|
Discendo Vox posted:Where are you guys getting this. The 3rd wasn't created in response to any kind of surveillance, and although I can't pull it up right now I'm pretty sure it's not cited in Griswold, either. Searches and seizures is the fourth amendment. The third is a weird historical dud that hasn't been relevant in US history. The situation it addresses doesn't apply here without a really tortured reading, and other constitutional doctrines work much better. The 3rd was a reaction to the intolerable acts which was the response to the Boston tea party. It required troops to be quartered in private homes, inns, taverns, etc with the explicit purpose to quell rebellion.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Currently, Wine determines what its version of the Windows API "should" do in two ways: I think they're saying copying windows.h in its entirety would be a violation of Microsoft's copyright but if you had some different formatting or names of variables or something it would not violate Microsoft's copyright? Edit: There's certainly some commercial software out there using wine to have a Linux version.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You aren't licensing it to them for a fee. You aren't making money off of the licenses. That's the point I'm trying to make. How is android licensing set up anyways? I thought dalvik was all part of the AOSP which is under an apache license. Google licenses applications for their own services and their patents at least...
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:If we can't "use the Windows function names" (which is basically all that is in the .h files), then our version wouldn't work at all. It's part of what it means to be an API. I don't think header files were copied during development, but even a wholly independent authoring of them would have many exactly identical lines since that's the only way they can be written at all. You can write the headers in a different sequence.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I suppose that's true, though there are canonical orderings highly likely to be duplicated (namely, alphabetical). Also windows.h is completely loving crazy so I would not be surprised if everything blew up if it wasn't in the right order.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Chuu posted:If it was this trivial to get around copyright law, this case wouldn't exist. It would be this trivial to get around a structure sequence and organization claim. In other words, why 37 APIs? Why not 45 or 15?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Because that would break interoperability. Like having dex files instead of jars?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Also it's trolling Scalia.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
blackmongoose posted:I still don't understand why people think quoting Scalia's dissent is trolling him Its more like "Hey Scalia you were exactly right about what the majority decision means and its a good thing"
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You do realize that a wiki is an example of a content-revision system that is publically available while supporting millions of editors, right? Is D&D now official a humor free zone?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Doesn't Hall v. Florida lower the standards? Since IQ is no longer a hard cutoff, couldn't a lower IQ plus some aggravating factors allow a person with an IQ of 60 to be executed? Or has it been framed that there is a lower bound on the IQ requirement, but the upper bound is fuzzy? Well the case was about someone with an IQ of 71 so...
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The ruling essetially does apply to all car chases, because high-speed car chases put innocent lives in danger basically by definition. That's why it's generally (though sadly, not universally) considered bad practice for cops to engage in them unless the person in the car is considered to pose a major threat to life if allowed to escape - it's far better to let people get away for petty traffic offenses (the original stop was for a burned-out headlight) than to engage in a prolonged, high-speed car chase that endangers everyone on or near the road and drives the suspect to even riskier behavior. The SCOTUS ruling amounts to judicial permission to execute anyone who runs from the police using a car, regardless or the initial crime or estimated threat level, because doing so can always be construed to endanger innocent lives. This was already the case though.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Thanks, that's a bit clearer. Incidentally, this appears to not be completely hypothetical, although I'm a bit ashamed to repost this link from a certain GBS thread: So if they win this lawsuit the city will be violating the terms of the various settlements and have to pay a fuckton of money, likely to result in layoffs in the police force?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Federal circuit reversed x2 today. Considers is the key word there but yes almost any other example would have been better. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of James Risen, the reporter who was threatened with jail time because he wouldn't testify against his source who leaked him classified information that he later published. The Federal Appeals court ruling went against him. Really it'll be up to congress to give reporters privilege, and uh, yeah....
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:How about a discussion about the just released Pom decision that Lanham act actions are permissible against deceptive food labeling? It has the potential to really shake up the food labeling industry which has been quite active in deceiving customers while hiding behind "it meets FDA requirements!" Grab some popcorn, this going to result in some interesting lawsuits.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I haven't read the decision yet, but if Pom prevailed, it's going to be a Very Bad Thing. The company is known for their own deceptive and overly broad marketing practices, these most recent suits have been specifically over applying flavor labeling in a way the FDA hadn't intended- which is, again, a Bad Thing. They'll be using it to prevent anyone else from marketing juice blends or artificial flavored products in a way that will really badly disturb food labeling law. POM won, here's the opinion of the unanimous court: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Right, so you're probably not familiar with food and drug law. The nourish your brain stuff, like the omega 3 stuff, is a byproduct of the emergence of structure-function claims and the dietary supplement category, which, short version, the FDA is legally barred from doing anything about. It's not puffery, it's DSHEA. Industry got together and got congress to pass a law that created a category of health claims that FDA can't investigate. All the same, attacking the FDA over this, or treating it as relevant to the case in question, isn't particularly accurate or productive. If you're interested in the different categories of health claim on labeling and want to know what to get angry over, This is a good place to start. Right. And the question is: Does following those regulations mean that the Lanham act does not apply. The answer is according to the court: No, it does apply, if congress didn't want it to apply then they'd have said so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Harik posted:Now that the forums are back - I don't get Aereo, at all. That for the end-user it's similar to a cable provider is irrelevant - it's also similar to going to a rent2own store and renting the antenna and Tivo, and that's explicitly legal. Is it just a case of ~~internet~~ being a magic word in the way a really long video cable wouldn't have been? The opinion amounts to "This is a community antenna service that operates over the internet instead of over coax. Congress explicitly regulates CATV services in a specific way and having a bunch of little antennas in one location instead of one big antenna at one location is irrelevant."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Harik posted:I'm still not seeing it. If I just leased space that had good reception and provided internet access and SOLD antennas to people, would that be legal? Now they own the antenna, but they're renting the place to put it and the internet access to get the signal back to you. The providing a cable to you for a fee is the problem thats what makes it cable TV.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:But the house can say, you're never going into recess... But the senate can set its own rules regarding recesses...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The rule about the House assenting to a Senate recess is one of the few rules about recessing that's actually in the Constitution (Article I, Section 5) "Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." Yeah with the 3 day thing making it in Boehner can hold things up can't he.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Scalia is apparently pissed and called the 3 day thing arbitrary when its in fact in the constitution. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
"Scalia argues that recess appointments are an anachronism, so there is no reason to bend over backwards to make them broadly available. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014#sthash.VhKy3JTq.dpuf" Well yeah they're an anachronism now thanks to this decision.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The moral of the story is that the court is once again clueless or willfully clueless of the nature of modern day american politics. Its kind of the job of the court to be fill fully clueless of modern day politics.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
"The opinion appears to be mainly focused on the fact that the buffer zone includes public ways and sidewalks. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014#sthash.VhKy3JTq.dpuf" Not too surprising then if its pretty limited.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Unions are not allowed to picket in front of business's but anti women's rights nut jobs are. Presumably they didn't give a 1st amendment right to block a road or sidewalk.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
"Scalia says in his concurring opinion that Hill should be overruled, which suggests that it has not been. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2014#sthash.VhKy3JTq.dpuf" Maybe he'll get so angry he has an aneurysm?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:But they can intimidate all they want! But they weren't blocking! Intimidation is dead! -John Roberts
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I'm more interested in political conventions, NATO summits, financial districts, and the like. On that note, at the risk of being overly cynical, why can't Massachusetts just do what the NYPD does: declare an area closed to people not having business there (for unspecified security reasons) and arrest everyone who doesn't leave for disorderly conduct? Doesn't look like it. John Roberts posted:The Commonwealth has not shown that it seriously undertook to address these various problems with the less intrusive tools readily available to it. It identifies not a single prosecution or injunction against individuals outside abortion clinics since the 1990s. The Commonwealth responds that the problems are too widespread for individual prosecutions and injunctions to be effective. But again, the record indicates that the problems are limited principally to the Boston clinic on Saturday mornings, and the police there appear per fectly capable of singling out lawbreakers. The Commonwealth also claims that it would be difficult to prove intentional or deliberate ob struction or intimidation and that the buffer zones accordingly make the police’s job easier. To meet the narrow tailoring requirement, however, the government must demonstrate that alternative measures that burden substantially less speech would fail to achieve the government’s interests, not simply that the chosen route is easier. In any event, to determine whether someone intends to block access to a clinic, a police officer need only order him to move; if he refuses, then there is no question that his continued conduct is knowing or in tentional. For similar reasons, the Commonwealth’s reliance on Bur- son v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191, is misplaced. There, the Court upheld a law establishing buffer zones outside polling places on the ground that less restrictive measures were inadequate. But whereas “[v]oter intimidation and election fraud” are “difficult to detect,” id., at 208, obstruction and harassment at abortion clinics are anything but sub tle. And while the police “generally are barred from the vicinity of the polls to avoid any appearance of coercion in the electoral process,” id., at 207, they maintain a significant presence outside Massachu setts abortion clinics. In short, given the vital First Amendment in terests at stake, it is not enough for Massachusetts simply to say that other approaches have not worked. Pp. 23–29.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:And apparently John Roberts isn't smart enough to know that? (Or he does know that and doesn't care because of his ideology.) He thinks the screaming lunatics are handled under other laws and is irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Magres posted:How the gently caress does getting in someone's face and screaming that they're a murderer and should burn in hell not constitute assault? But thats Roberts's point, its covered under laws that do not unnecessarily restrict other speech so the overall ban on anyone standing within 30ft of the door is too expansive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:It appears this is the site in question, with the now-meaningless 35-foot line. To be fair to Roberts he did go out of his way to write that managing a crowd might require moving people back, but the first amendment does not allow you to bar people from going into that zone at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:And Aereo is already getting used to quash personal streaming of live TV using the Dish Hopper. Aereo's entire thing was saying that they weren't a CATV system so they didn't have to pay retransmission fees. Dish is already paying retransmission fees so it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
McAlister posted:And I'm looking at "why" those loopholes and exemptions exist to argue that a buffer zone around medical facilities is as much in the spirit of the first amendment as saying no yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is. There is no restriction on yelling fire in a crowded theater.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Ummmm .... There kinda is. Its a form of public endangerment and there are rules against it. Right, but wouldn't a law against yelling "fire" in crowded places would fail the Brandenberg test?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Maybe there'll be a surprise quick kick on standing or something similarly meaningless!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.S683655x.dpuf
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Three dissents oh boy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
The majority opinion, by holding that the nonprofit accommodation is a less restrictive means for accommodating closely held for-profit business suggests (at least to me) that the non-profits who object to that process (because they don't want to have to certify that they object to providing contraceptive coverage) are in trouble. Seems unlikely the Court would say that this is a less restrictive means in this case, only to later hold that it is unconstitutional. But that's a very quick reaction. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.S683655x.dpuf Curious.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 15:37
|
|