Ok, a few issues. First, there are *9* black robes in Washington. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court is and always has been empowered to hear controversies arising from the U.S. Constitution. The 4th amendment concerns in this case would be of that nature.

With respect to gay marriage, the Court is hearing challenges to DOMA (a federal law), and cases that determine whether states are in violation of the U.S. Constitution with their particular implementations of gay marriage bans.

Federal courts do not generally hear (or have the power to hear) things that do not involve federal law or the U.S. Constitution. If it's a state law or constitution that has nothing to do with federal law, the state courts will be the only ones to hear your case. (There are exceptions, but that's the short version.)

You can get satellite broadband, though last I checked it was significantly more expensive than other broadband options (and with higher latency, but I'm sure you realize that). Again, I didn't go check, but it used to have slower speeds and relatively low data caps, as well.

I don't know how this would play out in the UK, but most US judges I've been before would have them back in court ASAP. It's true enough that they've put the required text in the required font on their site, and so they've technically complied with the letter of the order.

However, this isn't like an everyday contract where you get to find a loophole and laugh - it's a court order. Judges can and do ensure that parties abide by the letter *and* spirit of their rulings, and do not take kindly to those who skirt around their intent. (Unlike contracts, courts have a decent amount of latitude to clarify/modify their orders when things like this happen.)

I'm fairly certain that the judge did not intend for Apple to post the required text, then follow it up with excerpts from the court that appear to endorse Apple products - and I'm just as certain that Apple's lawyers knew that. Apple is seeing if they can get away with it, and I suppose the rest of us are, too.

From my perspective, the difference would be that virtual servers are far easier to provision/clone/move between providers than physical machines. Seizing a virtual server leaves the hosting provider out in the cold, not TPB. Setting up a new server just involves uploading/transferring an image/template rather than purchasing/installing a new box. It's easier, more versatile and resilient, and costs them far less when the police come knocking.

(That's not always true with 'cloud' computing, but it seems to be an excellent match for their needs. I'd agree that keeping physical load balancers decreases the effectiveness of the strategy, but virtualizing those could be a good next phase.)

Sort of like that, except that the parent had the money to replace the car, but decided to spend it elsewhere. Oh, and the parent evidently gave up their car without a sufficiently solid agreement with the neighbor about priority/etc. Oh, and they didn't just give up their car, they went out of their way to render it inoperable and shut down the entire auto industry.

If the idiot parents in your analogy didn't foresee the rather obvious scenario of a teenager doing something obnoxious, then car ownership may not be the only thing that's out of their league.

Maybe, but it's not likely to work out. Realistically you have until 2014 to repeal this, after that it's in effect and, for many political and practical reasons, it's too late to unring that bell.

So a plan like that would depend on Republicans winning both houses of Congress and the Presidency this November - a chance that's probably too big to take if you're a justice actively looking to stop this law.

Well see, we needed to boost revenues in rack hardware. With this, we can win either way! People buying new servers will need new racks, so $$$. People buying more racks who need to use some new and some normal equipment will have to buy adapters, so $$$.

I don't know whether this is really a net win on space vs. adding height to servers that need it in the current form factor, but hey, time to change things up, I suppose.

Actually, with a major athletics program, they are profit centers. They (football and men's basketball, generally) fund the rest of the sports programs. I can't speak for UF, but as a former student of another SEC school, I can tell you that the athletics program did not receive any funding from the university or government, they paid for the off-duty police officers required for basketball/football games, and funneled large sums back to the university in scholarship funds each year.

That's not to say that they didn't *try* to sneak things in from university funds every now and then, but that was pretty much universally squashed by taxpayers and faculty every time. The programs paid for their own facilities and upkeep.

Now, whether the current state of major collegiate athletics is appropriate to an academic environment is another discussion altogether, but in my experience the programs aren't draining any university funds, quite the opposite. The value of the programs in revenue generation and in driving admissions (schools with great athletics programs do see those numbers move with the success of the programs) is objectively there. It doesn't feel particularly clean, but it could be much worse, I suppose.

Eh, it's misleading for a couple reasons that lay people don't always realize. Think of it like this - it works in exactly the same way that news organizations make headlines out of people pleading 'not guilty'. That isn't news. Any attorney would advise their client to plead not guilty at the initial arraignment - you do the leg work and dealing on the case later, and maybe the plea gets changed in a deal. Either way, it's boilerplate to start with 'not guilty'.

This is an equally unremarkable headline. State and federal courts almost universally have local rules that permit judges to order mediation or just flatly require mediation. That's what's happening here. Apple and Samsung may or may not 'agree' in this case, but they'll be doing it anyway because that's how the system works. To sum up, there's no news here, civil procedure is just taking its natural course. The headline (and source article) are both somewhat misleading because there's no real news here, and the two companies aren't negotiating just because they think it's the best thing to do.

(Articles like this are one of my pet peeves as an attorney. I often wonder what the equivalents are for other professions...)