Yes, this certainly sounds like a classis under-frequency event caused by the unexpected loss of a generator station. When you have unexpected loss of a station or a transmission line, the frequency on the grid can drop precipitously. Key to frequency is that every (conventional) power plant provides some level of frequency response built-in, while operating under Automatic Governor Control (AGC).

Other power plants under AGC are supposed to put the breaks on an uncontrolled voltage drop. Sounds like the system wasn't able to recover in this case -- either because there weren't enough other plants online to absorb the frequency deviation, or the backup plants that should have been ready to respond weren't quite so ready after all. Here's a link to the National Electric Reliability Counsel (NERC) whitepaper describing such an event and how to prevent it: http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/Frequency_Response_White_Paper.pdf (NERC is the United States quasi-governmental agency responsible for electric reliability rules.)

I don't necessarily agree -- the types of documents PACER provides are highly technical, and are really only of use to attorneys and other litigants. Given the very limited distribution of these documents, I don't think it makes sense that everyone (a.k.a. the taxpayers at large) should pay for something that is, at heart, a tool to save litigants and lawyers money. Instead, PACER is designed to allow the government to recoup the costs of digitizing these documents, and pass those costs on to users of the system. A beneficiary-pays model.

Further, anyone who wants to compete with PACER is perfectly free to do so. These are government documents, with no copyright restrictions attached! I suspect that most companies are in no hurry to digitize millions of obscure documents that are generally only of use to a half-dozen people for less than 8 cents per page, but I could be wrong.

Just to be clear, the opinions issued by the Federal Courts of Appeal are all available free of charge from the various court web pages. You never have to pay to understand the law of the land or see the latest court opinion.

However, docketing sheets, procedural orders, etc. are available (i) free of charge in hard copy format at the court house, or (ii) electronically through the PACER system at a nominal per-page cost (currently 8 cents).

I just want people to be clear that court opinions are, and always have been, available free of charge.

Yes, I know most people refer to that period of time between Summer and Fall as well, that period of time between Summer and Fall. But I like to refer to it as Boot and Skirt Season. Boot and Skirt Season in my favorite time of the year for girl watching.

Sure, Summer offers a little more skin, and Spring -- when all the pretty girls strip down for the first time after six long months of Winter -- is pretty fabulous. But there is nothing quite like Boot and Skirt Season. Something about those long, black leather boots, and those short little skirts, nicely showing off a little leg....

Mmmm. I find that Boot and Skirt Season is particularly intense in east coast major cities, where young professional women are fasionable enough to want to make a statement, but also keep it classy. I guess it's just my own personal variance on the Sexy Librarian archtype. Ah, anyway, bring on the cool breezes of Boot and Skirt Season! Thanks ladies!

I guess I have this idealistic vision of what should happen here. Conregate the students and ask, "Who's took Algebra last year?" Take the first 20 (okay, 30) student who raise their hand, lead them to math class. "Who's in 9th Grade and hasn't had English yet?" Lead another group away. "Who took chemistry....? Biology...?" I know, it would never be that easy, but I still have some idealistic vision that a group of adults could really teach something; after all, the teachers are just as much victims of this as the students.

Also, keep in mind, this is Prince George's County -- a jurisdiction that in the 1970s capped property taxes at then-existing levels, and allowed only minimal increases since. Combine that with a high population of at-risk students, large pockets of poverty, serious struggles with drugs and crime in the community -- and you have a recipe for disaster. At some level, the people of Prince George's County get the educational system they pay for. And they are cheap, so the fact that they don't have the computer resources that they need is entirely par for the course (sadly).

As one of those non-techies who enjoys reading /. for the brilliant article summaries, insightful commentary and the sterling sense of humor of many posters, this little tale explains exactly why I am not willing to switch away from a mainstream operating system. I think I'm reasonably tech savy for someone who's never taken a computer programming class, but wow -- none of this makes the slightest degree of sense to someone like me. Can anyone explain why my initial gut sense is an over-reaction? Should my replacement computer (another laptop) be Linux (other than Apple)?

Maybe a silly question, but how do you record a call? I mean, I have recorded lines on the trading desk at work, but short of that.... hold up a small mic to the phone? Does that actually work?

Ever driven a Prius? You can drive in electric-only up to about 40 MPH, if you coax it.

Amen. People need to accept that is a progression of technology and that things are not going to happen overnight.

I bought my 2002 Prius after a six month wait time. I paid more for it then a comparably equiped gas car. There was no economic rationale for my purchase -- I did it because I loved the car, and had the privilege of driving a cutting edge piece of engineering for going on seven years now, with minimum maintenance and hassle. There's something beautiful about driving with virtually no noise and I still smile when I roll up to a stop sign and the engine shuts off.

Moreover, I am willing to pay higher than market rate because of the externalities associated with having the world's first mass-produced electric car:

I am supporting an environmental technology that I believe in.

I am supporting green-tech projects, built in America.

I love driving on electric power only.

I am willing to take a risk on buying the Volt or the Prius or any other quasi-experimental first-generation piece of tech hardware because I have the money.

I am buying it because as a child I wanted to know why I couldn't put a windmill on top of the family car and use wind power to make it go.

The key to realize here is that nuclear decommissioning funds are collected from electric ratepayers (i.e., you, me and everyone we know). When the electricity markets were deregulated in the 1990s, there was a real concern that nuclear plants would not be able to cover the costs of decommissioning. Most state public utility commissions imposed a non-bypassable stranded cost adder to your electric bill. A portion of each electric bill is thus deposited directly into the nuclear decommissioning trust fund. In a way, the fund is very much like a pension obligation. Companies are required to pay into the fund at a level specified by the NRC. When they are short, the company either has to step up its contribution or the state public service commission has to approve a greater contribution from ratepayers. Actually, I thought it was a very positive sign that the NRC has been so public and transparent at pointing out this potential problem.

Yes, the judge ruled as a matter of law that the fair use defense is not applicable in this case. Fair use is what lawyers call an "affirmative defense." The defendants have to convince the judge that, as a matter of law, they are entitled to present an affirmative defense to the finder of fact (either the jury, or if there is no jury, the judge). If the judge finds that the defendant has not met their burden of proving their affirmative defense, then the defendant is not permitted to present evidence in support of that defense.

Entirely standard practice and sets the stage for an appeal to the higher courts. In the American system, appeals as to a judge's finding regarding the law is what is called a de novo; meaning that the appeals court will review anew the lower court judge's legal findings. By contrast, the standard of review for findings of fact is the "highly deferential" standard. In practice, this means that it is much easier to prevail on an appeal regarding a judge's finding of law then it is to say that the judge/jury made an incorrect finding of fact. The upshot is that the defendant now has a nice clean legal issue (to wit, whether fair use can apply in cases like this) to present to the appeals court. Very nice from a law professor's point of view, though not a strategy most trial attorneys would endorse.

Yes, IAAL, but I am not your lawyer -- and there are an infinite number of permutations on this theme that justify(?) my billing rate. Consult one of your own for more info.

Folks -- you need to understand, this defense was designed to fail at the trial court level. Under the American court system, the trial court judge determines the facts of what happens (sometimes aided by a jury) and then applies established law to those facts. The parties can then appeal to the higher appellate courts if they think the judge erred in applying the law, or, as in this case, arguing that the law should be changed.

The type of fair use argument presented here was doomed to failure at the trial court level. Any lawyer would recognize this. However, now that the judge has made a decision of law that the fair use defense does not apply, the defendant can appeal to the trial court. The problem with celebrity/academic lawyers is that they aren't really representing their client -- they are trying to score political points and make ground-breaking precedent. Hopefully their client realized what he/she was signing up for.

Okay, so I wasn't quite sure how to respond to this question.... When I was a wee-youngster, I used to take great joy in smuggling books out of the school library. Something between a cleptomaniac thrill and a genuine love of the books and distrust of "authority." Most of them got smuggled back into the library at some point, but not all. Strange thing though, is that I still have a couple of those books -- including at least one that I've re-read in the past six months as an enjoyable light read (The Blue Sword by Robin McKinley, in fact). Okay, so not my finest hour as a human being.

Still, 25+ years later, I am an avid reader. Those early library books served me in extremely good stead, and I've never lost the love of reading that I found in the stolen corners of my grade school. While I tend not to use libraries that much these days (I'm a little rough on my books), they are a fabulous institution and well worth supporting.

By the way, my self-imposed penance for my borrowing (and not returning) ways is to give generously to my local library. In fact, I still stop by the book store and buy a few copies of the books I stole and drop them in the holiday toy drives they have around here. Maybe one of those kids will find this stuff as fabulous as I did. Pretty good outcome for $20 worth of stolen goods.

Other way around. The 20 percent note is subordinate to the 80 percent. 80/20 mortgages were a common method of getting around lending restrictions. Generally, the 80 percent majority first lien is senior, and then 20 percent remaining amount (in old days, this would have been the downpayment) was also financed at a significantly higher rate. Welcome to 2006.

Actually, what they are doing makes perfect sense and is in fact likely required by law. More importantly, a court proceeding is the only fair way to conduct this type of proceeding.

Think about it -- most states require that a judge review a foreclosure before it can be processed. One of the requirements is that before the property is sold that all potential lien holders must be contacted and given their chance to assert a claim. In fact, before the property can be sold, the secondary lien must be extinguished -- which requires a court order. Likely, the only way to proceed is to sue all the other lien holders.

Don't forget -- Wells Fargo is about to foreclose on some poor soul, and it not only holds the first lien, but the second as well. Likely, the two liens have different terms. I suspect that there may be some mortgage insurance involved in this case. It seems likely that the first lien is insured by a mortgage insurance company separate from Wells Fargo. ACME Insurance Co. has an incentive to protect its investment by actively litigating to protect its interests vis-a-vis the second lien holder. Most commercial insurance policies have a clause that allows the insurance company to appoint a lawyer to defend its interest. Thus even though Wells Fargo NA is the litigant (on both sides), it's entirely possible that they have little control over the litigation of the case.

Further, involving a judge when there is so obviously a conflict of interest is a good way to avoid being sued in the future. Most likely, there is a "Chinese Wall" separating the different branches of Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo has a fiduciary obligation to the landowner in this transaction.

With any of these permutations, it is perfectly logical that Wells Fargo would file suit against itself where there is such a flagrant conflict of interest. The presence of a judge in the proceeding -- at a minimum -- will give a veneer of credibility to the proceeding and (theoretically) ensure that the landowner's interests are represented.

Taking the insurance example, it might be in Wells Fargo's interest to dump the costs into the first or second lien. Generally, a first lien is less risky than the second lien. Perhaps the first lien requires the lien holder to repay all costs associated with foreclosure, while the second lien does not. Perhaps there is sufficient money in foreclosure to cover the first lien, but not the second. The possible permutations are endless. Either way, it is possible that Wells Fargo could serve its corporate interests by "rigging" the system in its favor.

Or it could be a big cock-up. Pretty funny either way, but not necessarily crazy.