Right, especially given the description in 6(e)(1)

Recording the Proceedings. Except while the grand jury is deliberating or voting, all proceedings must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device...

Seeing as how subsection iv uses the same language:

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

Clearly the "recording device" in 6(e)(2)(B)(iv) mentioned is the same as the one in 6(e)(1). It should be pretty clear that (iv) was meant to apply to the person running the audio or video recorder when the proceedings are recorded instead of (or in addition to) using a court reporter.

I'm pretty sure the GP meant "dying of other causes unrelated to AIDS." E.g., accident, heart disease, stroke, etc.

Yeah, you're right, my bad for not RTFO. Though the Ninth circuit, while it may have some conservatives, is still the most liberal circuit by a wide margin.

First, as other posters have pointed out, it's an employer/employee agreement, not a consumer ToS. Second, the decision was by the Ninth Circuit a.k.a the People's Republic of the Ninth Circuit. The five Republicans on SCOTUS like to slap down the Ninth Circuit's rulings out of principle or spite or both. This will not end well for the employee.

Game theory says cartels can be unstable due to cheating, but the key factor is whether the cheating is detectable. With a commodity such as oil, cheating is hard to detect, so there are incentives to cheat. OPEC members cheat frequently; the members keep the cartel in place anyway, but much of the time, the cartel has little effect. With an employer cartel, cheating is obvious - the employer almost always finds out where the employee is going.

What's impressive about this alleged cartel is the audacity to keep it up, given the number of people who must have known about it: recruiters, hiring managers, HR folks, etc. There had to be 100 people at each company who knew it was in place, and nobody ratted for five years.

Actually, a dowry is paid by the bride (or her family), not by the groom.

That's only because you don't know what ex post facto means. "No Ex post facto laws" does not mean "the criminal code can never be added to" or "an act that was legal at one point shall forevermore be legal". It means "if it was legal when you did it, you can't be punished, even if it's made illegal later."

If you copied the public domain work in the past, you're fine. If you copy the same (now copyrighted) work now, that's illegal.

Wrong.

Since the black box showed his seatbelt was unbuckled and his speed (before falling asleep) was 10 mph over the limit, but he told the police that his seatbelt was buckled and he wasn't speeding, he should be subject to prosecution for obstruction of justice. Or does the law apply only to little people in Massachusetts?

Don't equate kamikazes with today's suicide bombers. Kamikazes had military targets and were done in the middle of a declared war. Suicide bombers, with rare exceptions, have civilian targets which are at peace. BIG difference.

Once you chase off a sheriff with weapons, your claim to use of excessive police force goes out the window, in my book. Further, the drone technology may have limitations that prevent it from being able to determine whether the suspects were truly unarmed. If you have 3 guys walking around a field, a drone can probably tell that they don't have long guns on them, but I highly doubt that the scan (thermal mode or visual) can detect sidearms. If I were a sheriff, I certainly wouldn't bet my life on that technology.

No, the Prius uses nickel-metal hydride batteries, not lithium ion.

Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/435/

XKCD covered the WHO alarm quite nicely..

Why is it that researchers always say that more research is needed? Is that like a barber always thinking you could use a haircut?