Texsox

It would seem to me that if someone has to make a decision, judge something, they should look at whatever knowledge is available. I suspect most judges are capable enough to look at a different law, see where the law differs and where is is similar, and look at that ruling, and add it to their knowledge. It might not apply, it might, but I can't see where knowledge is ever bad.

QUOTE (DanksFan @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 06:05 PM) On top of that, they are a pain in the rear to work on (as a laptop technician), the lack of optical drive takes the cake for me in reasons why not to get one. Sure, externals work nicely in Windows, but it's always a headache trying to use it as a boot device. That is the other draw back for me, lack of an optical drive. Much like a cell phone morphed into a hand held computer, when I first saw a netbook, I thought it was a DVD player on steroids.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 09:41 AM) No, I am not saying that a country flag their own vessels otherwise. I am saying that vessels flagged as NATO (not flagged as a country specifically) should choose a NATO country flag that gives them the tools they need. And NATO should focus on getting the countries with the most useful laws, the most involved in this. Countries like Belgium, who are basically impotent for this purpose, should be encouraged to provide assistance in some other theatre. Ah, good plan. The root is fixing Somalia, but that is in the eye of the beholder

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 04:19 PM) I think there is, but the problem is law A isn't the same in every country, nor is the intent of law A, nor the reason behind law A, etc. The judiciary's intent (or so it was in the beginning) wasn't to decide the "right" viewpoint, but instead to be sure that the "right" viewpoint in a given case conformed to the law. So it makes no sense, IMO, to view another country's decision of law A as holding any value here when the same foundational rules don't apply. I think Ginsburg (and many before her) want to justify ruling on what they think is "right" be bolstering their opinion with a global consensus. In a broad sense it seems like a wonderful idea to include international views on domestic issues, but that's not the job of the judiciary, and it certainly isn't a good thing for them to be using those views in "creating" law here. Bottom line, it just seems wrong to say, we don't want more information, we want less. The embracing of ignorance is perhaps one reason why those in the business of law are held in such low esteem by a segment of the population. While most professions would be looking anywhere for better ideas, lawyers and judges are told to dig their heads in the sand and not look around. Seems like a faulty system if we cannot trust judges to think.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 04:00 PM) The job of legislators is to create the "solutions." The judiciary merely interprets. That's the problem with basing a decision, in whole or in part, on international decisions - the judiciary decides (legislates) what it thinks works for the given situation, not what the law requires. Good point, thank you for the reminder. Is there any value in seeing how others interpreted what the law requires?

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) According to Consumer Reports (*grain of salt here*), the Samsung NP-hmmmphhmpph...is supposed to be the best one. Can't remember the number...410? Maybe? We are probably going to get that one. And also according to CR...the HP is the lowest rated. Acer is even rated higher. I'm wondering if the screen will be too small for me to use comfortably. I'm an old man with bifocals. Also the processor seems wimpy, and there is no way to add ram in the ones I looked at.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) Did you leave a nice tip? He did. It was keep an eye on drunk Blackhawk fans

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) I don't think that really matters. Since the beginning of our relatively young judicial system, judges have been guided by the principles of the Constitution and subsequent legislation and precedent, not what other countries think. I just feel like judicial systems are so different, and that legal reasoning comes from totally different places depending on the social, political, and legal systems involved, that a decision in country A isn't really applicable to country B. And really most of these "corner cases" deal with moral issues - the death penalty, torture, rights of certain individuals, etc. The decisions in those cases should be rooted in our own society, not anothers. So we ignore any solutions that were not created here? That seems silly. It would be like Illinois ignoring something Wisconsin is doing. If there is a better solution somewhere, why not adopt it? A decision by A might not be applicable to B, but it may. How would we know if we remain ignorant of what A is doing? I'm thinking of issues from emerging technology. Something as simple as a fax machine or internet "signature" and are the documents "legal" if they are signed and transmitted. It would seem natural to me to look around and see how others, inside and outside the US, have handled it.

My laptop is too big. It is a desktop replaceable with a 17" display. I am looking at something smaller for email, Soxtalk, perhaps some light word processing. Does anyone have a mini with a 9", 10", or 12" display? http://www.dell.com/content/products/produ...=lthp&s=dhs I've been looking at the Dell and HP offerings and thinking it's worth a $400 test.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 21, 2009 -> 10:44 AM) I completely disagree with the position that SCOTUS should be using international law, in any way. Our entire system is designed around our own judicial precedent, not that of other countries. I think there has to be a discussion of how they are using it. To me it would be the same as saying we will not look at any medical research being done outside of the US. If they are using the information to expand their knowledge base prior to making a ruling, I do not see how more knowledge is a bad thing. It seems silly for the justices to close their eyes and ears and chant we are not looking, we can't hear you, unless you're American.

Sad, he sucks as a pitchman.

Not dine and ditch, but fill and ditch. I put my debit card into the gas pump and wasn't really paying attention. The pump clicked off at $20. I thought that was weird, reentered my card and finished filling up. Of course the machine would not print a receipt and I had to go inside. So as I enter, I hear this twenty-something b**** tell the clerk, "I don't want to be rude but . . ." and she goes off on the clerk wondering why she had not put the $20 on here pump yet. She kept screaming that's my van right fucxking there you f***ing no brain clerk. Now all three clerks are standing there like idiots with a dear in the headlight look. The main clerk is arguing with the customer, claiming the customer's friend who paid for the gas *and* rolling papers said pump 5 NOT pump 9. The crazy b**** customer was tossing out every racial slur she could think of and I decided to not jump in to solve the problem by paying the $20. I asked for the receipt for pump 5, they looked at me and I said, hey, I didn't see who filled up in front of me. It may have been a van, I can't be certain. Which technically was true. I didn't see who pulled out in front of me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 05:15 PM) No, they wouldn't. My point is, give them the tools they need to act - flag all the coalition ships you can as a country that actually has useful on-point laws. That sounds great on the surface, but how do you reconcile what would in effect be ignoring your own country's laws? Presumably, the laws of your country reflect your morals, ethics, etc. Is there a danger in setting those aside? I guess the route that would fit is to have each country rewrite their piracy laws to reflect modern realities or hire the thugs of the world to deal with the problem.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 05:09 PM) That was my point. Would NATO pass a resolution? The key here is actually someone helping that nation. And by helping it may take an invasion. Too bad they don't have anything worth keeping or it would already have been done. Oil is the key to save citizens from evil.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) Note this key phrase in that article: If US law allows for detainment and trial in its maritime law, they can do it. And I think US law does indeed allow for it. Easy solution - have all the NATO multi-national vessels be flagged as US ships (or other countries with similar laws). And if other countries like Belgium have their own ships there, just leave them out of the hunt, and try to encourage them to change their laws or stay the hell out of the way. If they are flagged NATO, won't they have to follow NATO law. Which IIRC, would then call for a NATO resolution authorizing those actions. Hmm, a pirate war . . .

Forgotten in all this is the snipers accomplished their mission without hurting a single pirate parrot. That's some shooting.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 10:35 AM) The horses swim in polo? I've never seen that.

Just saying, but does half the team know what the casa blanca (white house) is?

QUOTE (3E8 @ Apr 20, 2009 -> 10:05 AM) I think so. Those horses are $100K apeice. Someone with a vendetta could do a lot in monetary damage alone They were weak and dizzy, maybe someone was just trying to make them sick so they couldn't swim during the matches.

Beat Generation Writings - Dr. Rob Johnson Film Studies - Dr. Linda Belau Forensic Psychology - Alphonse Mercado Monsters in Literature - Barbara Vielma Theories of Learning - Dr. Mark Winkle

On the 10th Anniversary of Columbine, it seems very easy to believe someone killed all those horses.

I stopped in my early twenties, mostly because of the work culture and wanting to be taken seriously. So now when I do, my kids laugh.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 18, 2009 -> 11:19 AM) oooo burn. Totally using this. Of course that was followed by Illinois pride, Germany in the 1940s

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 18, 2009 -> 07:43 AM) That type of pride is only rivaled by late 1930's Germany.

QUOTE (T R U @ Apr 17, 2009 -> 11:48 PM) Try being from Illinois (Or up north in general) and living down here.. They think Texas is the greatest thing ever, I cant stand it Part One, I am, although it's been 15 years now. Part Two. Yep, Texans do. What does that tell you about the other states that cannot seem to muster that same state pride??