or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 68

post #1006 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

It's doubly bullshit because it's such a non-issue. There were 43 kids who died in hot cars last year. We average about 38 a year.
90 Children die from falling down in the home each year. Where's the outcry on parents for not installing foam carpeting and locking their children in padded rooms?

This is media scaremongering and attention whoring. There are 20.9 million 0-5 year old children in the US. Sorry, not all the little turtles are going to make it to the ocean. That doesn't mean it's somebody's fault, and it sure as shit shouldn't be national news.

EDIT - If I did my math correctly (best I could do with the limits) http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/games/odds.php
Yeah, not something that's going to keep me up at night.

DOUBLE EDIT - Better calculator

probability is 43/20900000 or 0

Astonishingly similar results.

I'll put $1 on it.
post #1007 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I'll put $1 on it.

So you would have won $43 and lost $20,899,957.
post #1008 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I just heard the Redskins's lawyer talk, and they are going to appeal. Allegedly the majority opinion includes a footnote that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

If I weren't lazy and sorta busy I'd look that up, because it sounds interesting. Although by interesting I mean highly doubtful. I understand you're just passing along what the team's lawyer said, but it would be odd for majority opinion to assert that the statute upon which its decision is based is unconstitutional. (But I'm not a patent lawyer and my knowledge of that process is pretty limited.) Moreover, it strikes me as really weird, if true, that it wouldn't have been mentioned in any of the kajillion stories and analyses that popped up on the itnerwebz yesterday.
post #1009 of 5129
No no, I'm picking a random kid. If I don't win, I'll play again. The numbers are bound to work out in my favor eventually.
post #1010 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

If I weren't lazy and sorta busy I'd look that up, because it sounds interesting. Although by interesting I mean highly doubtful. I understand you're just passing along what the team's lawyer said, but it would be odd for majority opinion to assert that the statute upon which its decision is based is unconstitutional. (But I'm not a patent lawyer and my knowledge of that process is pretty limited.) Moreover, it strikes me as really weird, if true, that it wouldn't have been mentioned in any of the kajillion stories and analyses that popped up on the itnerwebz yesterday.

I have no side on this issue - I don't much care about football. The lawyer was just on the radio this morning. I did a quick search for "constitutional" and found the below. Beyond that I don't know, and like you I don't care enough. I wouldn't be surprised if they appeal though. The lawyers get more billable hours and the owners seem willing to fight it.

1 The Board struck the other affirmative defenses, which primarily concern Constitutional challenges and they are preserved for appeal.
post #1011 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I have no side on this issue - I don't much care about football. The lawyer was just on the radio this morning. I did a quick search for "constitutional" and found the below. Beyond that I don't know, and like you I don't care enough. I wouldn't be surprised if they appeal though. The lawyers get more billable hours and the owners seem willing to fight it.

1 The Board struck the other affirmative defenses, which primarily concern Constitutional challenges and they are preserved for appeal.

Ah, I see. In lawyer jargon, that means either that at some point in the proceedings (1) the Board decided that the team's claim that the statute is unconstitutionally vague was invalid; or (2) the Board decided for procedural reasons that it would not consider that claim.

Saying it's preserved for appeal means just that - because they tried to raise the argument at the Board level (but lost), they raise it in their appeal. Analogy:

You're charged with being drunk in public. You tell the trial judge you want to introduce evidence that it wasn't you, but rather your evil twin Harold Falcon who was being drunk and disorderly. The judge refuses to let you present the evidence. By raising the issue, you have "preserved" it. If you are convicted and appeal, you can argue that you were prejudiced by not being allowed to present that evidence.
On the other hand, if you go through the whole trial without mentioning your twin because you're so ashamed of him, you haven't preserved the issue -- you've waived it. The basic idea is that appeals are for trying to fix actual errors by the court or board at the lower level. If the lawyers/parties screwed up by failing to raise the issue, and the court or board never had a chance to address it, the general rule is that an appeals court won't consider it because there's no "error" by the first court or board to correct.

Totally get you weren't staking out a position - I was just suggesting that between the USPTO opinion, the journalists, the team's lawyer, etc., something may have gotten lost in translation.
post #1012 of 5129
Well put, lawyerdad.
post #1013 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Ah, I see. In lawyer jargon, that means either that at some point in the proceedings (1) the Board decided that the team's claim that the statute is unconstitutionally vague was invalid; or (2) the Board decided for procedural reasons that it would not consider that claim.

Saying it's preserved for appeal means just that - because they tried to raise the argument at the Board level (but lost), they raise it in their appeal. Analogy:

You're charged with being drunk in public. You tell the trial judge you want to introduce evidence that it wasn't you, but rather your evil twin Harold Falcon who was being drunk and disorderly. The judge refuses to let you present the evidence. By raising the issue, you have "preserved" it. If you are convicted and appeal, you can argue that you were prejudiced by not being allowed to present that evidence.
On the other hand, if you go through the whole trial without mentioning your twin because you're so ashamed of him, you haven't preserved the issue -- you've waived it. The basic idea is that appeals are for trying to fix actual errors by the court or board at the lower level. If the lawyers/parties screwed up by failing to raise the issue, and the court or board never had a chance to address it, the general rule is that an appeals court won't consider it because there's no "error" by the first court or board to correct.

Totally get you weren't staking out a position - I was just suggesting that between the USPTO opinion, the journalists, the team's lawyer, etc., something may have gotten lost in translation.

Good analogy - glad I'm not the evil twin.
post #1014 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Good analogy - glad I'm not the evil twin.

In Harv's trial you are.
post #1015 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Wondering what sort of social media outrage this has/will generate?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/19/brian-schweitzer-says-his-gaydar-goes-off-when-he-sees-eric-cantor/?hpt=hp_t2
Quote:
“If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say—and I'm fine with gay people, that's all right—but my gaydar is 60-70 percent,” Schweitzer said in the interview.

“Don't hold this against me, but I'm going to blurt it out. How do I say this ... men in the South, they are a little effeminate," he said. "They just have effeminate mannerisms.”

#banbrian or does he get a pass?
post #1016 of 5129
Who is he and what political party does he belong to?
post #1017 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Dem, former gov of Montana, wants to run for POTUS in 2016.
post #1018 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

In Harv's trial you are.

That's what my evil twin calls reasonable doubt.
post #1019 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Dem, former gov of Montana, wants to run for POTUS in 2016.

He also spent a significant period of time in Libya and Saudi Arabia and speaks fluent Arabic. Are we sure he's not a secret Muslim?
post #1020 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

He also spent a significant period of time in Libya and Saudi Arabia and speaks fluent Arabic. Are we sure he's not a secret Muslim?

Your Allah-dar is going off?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob