ABCLAW

49 ms·

661.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
You may be confusing making arguments with providing testimony as an expert to a tribunal or court. Expert testimony is evidence, not argument.
662.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
Are you perhaps looking for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve ?
663.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
AG Schneiderman, While not from the US, as a jurist I feel compelled to do my part to prevent abuse of process and misrepresentations from occurring in the public sphere. Is there any role available for American or Canadian jurists to help
664.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
Yes. Developers that obtain approval for neighbourhood plans operate in exactly this manner, putting in sewage, roads, schools, parks, etc. in order to improve the value of the commercial/residential units they are selling. Additionall
665.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
That's a great argument in theory, but that isn't the way those laws work. The thought experiment is trotted out frequently to justify any type of corporate race to the bottom. It isn't anything more than a misleading misread
666.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
No, I'm not. And no it isn't - to say so is intentionally misleading. The common use of the term rollback is to imply that a server or other system is reset to a previous stored state. We cannot get back to the previous state. The
667.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
No, it isn't correct in context. There's an implicit premise that it's alright to strip regulations to return to the prior state because you will return to the prior state. But in this case you won't return to the prior
668.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
No, it isn't. Removing Title II classification does not get us back to the rules that governed the internet in 2015. The FCC issued the Open Internet Order in 2010. Verizon sued them within a month. In 2014, Verizon won the case, in pa
669.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
Likely because you haven't read any of the links to cases or explanations in the thread about the history of the issue. See the following summary or check any of the synopses in the thread about the historical background: https:/
670.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
Want to know how these things are done normally when actual legislative reform is contemplated? First you draft a bill. Then you have a bunch of people debate the bill. Then you have the bill have a section which describes how it comes into
671.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
Perfect is the enemy of good. I'm sure there's a utopian piece of legislation which would be specifically tailored to ISP regulation. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. Why remove Title II prior to getting that magical piece of
672.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
No, the argument is worse than that because it is intentionally inaccurate. The re-framing it aims to perform is misleading and distracts from the issue.
673.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
No he isn't. Internet was fine in 2015 because the FCC was working fairly hard to prevent ISPs from shitting it up. Please read the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... As a s
674.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
This is not why certain retailers aren't supporting Apple Pay. Interchange fees and their associated bulk volume rate discounts are.
675.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
The first amendment did not create democracy. It was enacted in one. That's the point being made.
676.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
>In his remarks Thursday, Pai said it was “utter nonsense” that his agency's decisions on media ownership would lead to a company dominating local media markets by buying up newspapers and radio stations. >“It will open the door
677.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
Sure you can. We just don't. If you think the EU and the US couldn't get an international tax harmonization treaty that allowed countries to follow revenue into specified haven countries and tax the cash flows where the revenues w
678.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
So the actual issue here is that the 'pure' bloodline might be tainted? Oh boy. The cat is out of the bag. If this was actually about 'culture', we'd have a different discussion here. Nothing prevents a chinese&#x2F
679.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
These are small countries with a number of sophisticated ex-pats who have placed themselves in positions of power to control local regulations. The result of this control is an influx of offshore funds which they manage as financiers, local
680.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
I did the test cold, expecting it to be in-situ practice for a 'real' test which I anticipated to write a year later. I scored over 170 easily. I later trained to become an LSAT instructor on the basis of my scores and realized I
681.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
A private contract does not attract protection from the first amendment, which is a bar upon the creation of laws, not a bar upon the contractual behavior of private parties. I think you've skipped the key point here. >Google's
682.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
There are additional concerns associated with DRM that aren't revealed in the Hickson post - he speaks solely to the point of intention behind DRM. That begs the question: are there unintended victims of DRM? Yes, there are. Copyright
683.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
https://twitter.com/getongab/status/908786987049533440 Okay. Lets be more precise. Does 'Zero curtailing of hate speech' work for you?
684.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
When you read contract language, you don't get to ignore words that you don't like. In this case, the key word is 'sufficient'. Google's position doesn't need to be that twitter is free from hate, but rather th
685.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
Depends on how the regulator interprets the bar on sharing billings with non-lawyers. Westlaw and Lexis have massive offerings that do a ton to make work easier, so there's obviously room to work with, but they aren't providing pr
686.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
>IANAL, but isn't champerty permitted (or not prohibited) in almost every state? Nope. Third party lending as a broad policy trend has certainly opened up over time, but some states still have the restriction, others have reformed i
687.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
For individuals considering this, note that champerty arrangements are illegal in certain jurisdictions. If you get hit for that, you're on the hook, not them. That's explicit in their ToS. Have fun, kiddos.
688.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
In my experience, the regulators aren't really being sold in the first place. They don't have the resources or willingness to stir up a hornet's nest if they can get away with it. Normally the key battle is in determining if
689.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
They aren't, but you're looking at this the wrong way around. You want all levels of government working together to create a healthy society - If your urban planners just defer health costs to private health insurance, what incent
690.
by ABCLAW 9y ago
I work in the field, have money invested in the field and have spoken with both the organizations in question (as well as their compliance counsels) as well as their regulators. In law, new business models often are in violation, compliance

More ›