Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34452
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Also, one thing that's heavily implicated here is IP. The government, fairly obviously, grants and permits enforcement of IPR in an ostensibly neutral way (and, I think a practically neutral way, also, despite what some conspiracy theorist types may think). But now we have gotten to Standards Essential Patents (SEP) that are required to be licensed on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. In the US, the government most stays out of that and lets private consortia (standard-setting bodies) decide what is an SEP and the courts mostly decide what is FRAND. In other countries, I believe there is a bit more government intervention. Also, with respect to medical/pharma tech, the FDA has their thumb on the scale as well as the IP system and it's a lot more arguably non-neutral.
  2. Is there? JE's relations with other top coaches like Sheffield, seem more congenial, but is there active bad blood?
  3. I think funding of research may be a different question from OPs original question, which is what should the government do with a "disruptive technology" regardless of origin?
  4. What's the preferred weapon for shooting down drones left and right? Radar-guided 5"? Burst from a CIWS?
  5. In height, almost an inch. In width, just slightly smaller. I had considered various solutions, but am not all that enamored with size. So, I figured downsizing a little (Sony is 55, LG is 48), but upgrading the panel tech might be a good compromise because I really don't think I'm all that sensitive to "picture quality."
  6. Trump runs the hate engine so well because he is a part of it. It's a giant inferiority complex of the unintelligent and poorly educated and Trump has it in spades. It will be rare to find someone that has his level of exposure and "material success" that has such a glaring inferiority complex. Even short, weird meatball Ron can't touch it.
  7. GPA and LSAT score are going to rule the roost for law school admissions. A more rigorous degree will count for something, but that assumes that the law school is familiar with the undergraduate institution and its degree plans. Vanderbilt probably might discriminate between the two, maybe Duke, also, Emory for certain, nearly. Not sure about more remote and possibly prestigious law schools. An honors college probably keeps stats on admissions to graduate/law schools. might as well ask.
  8. The nazis at the Supreme Court represent the really dangerous ideologue brainiac segment of conservatism in a lot of or most ways. The "dominionists" or "common good" theorists. They no longer need Trump and view him as a truly useful idiot but idiot nevertheless. Because they don't need to win elections, they're not nearly as beholden to him as elected officials, who have lost sight of the fact that he is truly an idiot.
  9. Yeah, that's a factor, in addition to maintaining their own power. It seems ol' Kav is quite sensitive to appearances and so is Barrett. See this. https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%3A//www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/us/supreme-court-dobbs-roe-abortion.html#site-content But, taking the longer view, I think they understand that putting the president above the law is very dangerous, even if it is considered to be advantageous in the short term. And, again, putting the president above the law derogates their own power. Also, worth noting that many of their recent controversial decisions (example the Clean Water Act, but cf. Dobbs) could be easily undone by a functional congress. so they are aware that the impact of a lot of them may be less than permanent. Ruling in favor of Trump would be pretty permanent, although this is a very small wrinkle in the overall Trump problem (compared to immunity, for example).
  10. I had my suspicions that JE was a pretty good guy (you kind of never know with coaches, see, e.g. Brown, Wm. Mack), but it is becoming apparent with all the Madi love and related team love that seems to be reciprocated by Elliott, that he seems to run a really "humane," for lack of a better term, program.
  11. Probably worthwhile to note that Caffey was a xfer to Corn from Mizzou.
  12. I mean, in theory it replaces investment. But a solid chunk of the population can't invest. They don't have the ability to postpone gratification to hold money back to invest or to invest it wisely. So there would not only be winners and losers among those who did invest the 12% of their income, but complete losers who didn't invest at all. And, like you said, then what? What's that going to cost when you address it on the back-end? And this whole survival-of-the-fittest thing is kind of fun in some sci-fi novel kind of way, but it's not workable in real life unless you are a sociopath. I was reading that Gen X seems to be particularly bad off as the first generation that didn't have defined-benefit pensions that at least rolled over into a 401k. That is, we are the first 401k only generation and it's not looking good.
  13. Yeah, that figured into my analysis there. When I said "judicial lawmaking." Because that is, apparently, a valid form of state law governing elections, which is the primary source of that law until Congress enters the field, that would seem to give Colorado's determination of a valid candidate some extra force.
  14. But you know as well as I do that it has never been anything else. More subtle, sure, more incremental, absolutely, but it's always been calvinball. Nevertheless, Trump getting immunity or being free of the consequences of the events surrounding January 6 has never seemed to be one of this majority's priorities or pre-ordained outcomes, despite it being convenient or conducive to carrying out the right-wing authoritarian agenda. The best explanation I can come up with is that the majority wants the Court to retain its power over the presidency, what little it's got.
  15. Possible. But seems like too important an issue to dodge and they could make a decision independent of the facts. One plausible way I see it going down is: The 14th is silent as to the mechanism for determining whether a candidate engaged in insurrection At the time of its enactment, as today, states are responsible for determining who to put on ballots and who is a valid candidate, carrying out Constitutional rules The "original" understanding then must have been that the states would figure this one out too Congress conceivably could have elaborated on this like the KKK Act (28 USC 1981 and 1983), but has not So, bingo, bango, Colorado ruling valid
  16. That's so fucked up. One of the central criticisms of Roe was that it was an issue for the states under their police power, but now that they got that, they want to federally legislate. FUBAR.
  17. In case you haven't noticed, since Trump left office, the Supreme Court hasn't done him one single favor. I didn't say they weren't jackholes or they weren't enacting whatever conservative policies they were chosen to enact. It just so happens that conservative policies apparently don't quite line up with Trump policies, at least not those that keep him out of jail or in office.
  18. Yeah, best wishes to her for a speedy recovery. The reality of this is that med mal suits in Texas are so difficult and expensive to prosecute that absent a painful early death or lifetime disability, with attendant loss of income and care cost, this probably isn't a very attractive case.
  19. Well, as noted above, the only appeal at this point is SCOTUS. Given that the administration and conduct of federal elections is a matter of state law (including, apparently now, judicial law as well as legislative law) and Congress has not seen fit to elucidate on this part of the 14th Amendment, it might well be upheld.
  20. Poison your own damn blood! It's the 'murican way!
  21. Counter-counter-point: They only needed 5 of 9 unelected officials to Dobbs. They're gonna need 269 plus elected officials to do this.
  22. If you have not, you need to read all of his. Liar's Poker is one of the best.
  23. For the record, I think it's wrong to preach partisan politics and tax exemptions should be jeopardized as a result.
  24. Well, I attend an upper middle class church and have never heard the minister delve into politics either way in 50 some-odd years of attendance. Most ministers of mainline churches speak in generalities of "love your neighbor," not "love the convicted felon or misguided republican." One of the conundrums here is that "real" Christians are supposed to love their enemies. That doesn't mean endorse them or condone them, but the notion of saying "I'm a good Methodist and I oppose Donald Trump and all the fundagelical morons that support him, as well as fundagelicals generally," is not really something most mainline churches are going to do. I think, ultimately, most responsible Christian clergy stay the hell out of politics. That separation of church and state thing runs two directions, really.
  25. I get the John Cook hate, I kinda hate him too. But what you see there is really just how he rolls, he's not really singling out Texas for scorn. However, the big narrative there is that Cook is one of the best in the game (there's really no question there), and, over the longer-term, has along with his staff, developed better-rounded teams than JE. Which is why they've beaten us for NC's twice before and eliminated us at least a couple other times. With the portal, JE can now fix recruiting or evaluation mistakes that he couldn't before, or wasn't inclined to "see." Hopefully, that will become less necessary than the Fleck transfer.
×
×
  • Create New...