Asp Forum - Active dutch spoken usergroup

wimpunk

10/11/2007 1:20:00 PM

Hi,

I was wondering if there's any Dutch spoken ruby user group. I found a
few groups but mostly there hasn't been much activity lately.

Kind regards,

wimpunk.

4 Answers

Rhino

7/25/2013 12:23:00 AM

On 24/07/2013 6:26 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:43:14 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2013 5:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> This morning there was a victory for common sense in the Ninth Circuit
>>> appeals court ruling in the Fox v. Dish case over Dish's AutoHopper
>>> technology.
>>>
>>> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/739474-fox...
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/10340723925/appeals-court-broadcasters-cant-use-copyright-to-block-commercial-skip...
>>>
>>
>> An interesting case and precedent.
>
> Here's an abstruse legal question that I don't know the answer to: is
> the holding binding precedent since there is no final judgment? I
> guess it probably is.
>
> Preliminary injunction decisions generally are the end of injunction
> litigation, but not always. But since the only purpose of a trial is
> to obtain a final finding of fact, it wouldn't have any impact on
> findings of law.
>
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not American so I can't begin to respond to
your point from a basis of personal knowledge. If you're saying that I'm
misusing the term "precedent", you are likely right. I'm not sure
whether a ruling like this one is rightfully considered a precedent.

I also agree that this is not necessarily the end of anything. The
losing party can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. It wouldn't be
unusual for higher courts to overturn decisions of lower courts.

--
Rhino

Mason Barge

7/25/2013 12:56:00 PM

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:22:33 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:

>On 24/07/2013 6:26 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:43:14 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/07/2013 5:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> This morning there was a victory for common sense in the Ninth Circuit
>>>> appeals court ruling in the Fox v. Dish case over Dish's AutoHopper
>>>> technology.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/739474-fox...
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/10340723925/appeals-court-broadcasters-cant-use-copyright-to-block-commercial-skip...
>>>>
>>>
>>> An interesting case and precedent.
>>
>> Here's an abstruse legal question that I don't know the answer to: is
>> the holding binding precedent since there is no final judgment? I
>> guess it probably is.
>>
>> Preliminary injunction decisions generally are the end of injunction
>> litigation, but not always. But since the only purpose of a trial is
>> to obtain a final finding of fact, it wouldn't have any impact on
>> findings of law.
>>
>I'm not a lawyer and I'm not American so I can't begin to respond to
>your point from a basis of personal knowledge. If you're saying that I'm
>misusing the term "precedent", you are likely right. I'm not sure
>whether a ruling like this one is rightfully considered a precedent.

I apologize - I was not implying any criticism of you in the least. My
point was that I, who handled this precise sort of issue a lot in my
career, had to stop and figure it out.

This is binding precedent in every federal court (and every state
court considering a question of federal law) in the 9th Circuit:
California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona.

This is probably the most liberal circuit in the United States.

The decision is binding and can be overruled in only three ways: 1) By
the Supreme Court issuing a "writ of certiorari" and subsequently
reversing it, 2) by the entirety of all the circuit judges of the 9th
Circuit issuing an order that it be reheard "en banc", that is, by the
entirety. I think there are 27 of them. Anyway, this has already
been refused; 3) by Congress changing the law (or Constitutional
amendment, if its a Constitutional case).

Oh, yes. Hawaii and Alaska, and the Pacific Islands territories are
also in this circuit :)

I try to be more of a resource for people who want to know what's
actually going on than a Mr. Know-it-all, not always successfully.

>I also agree that this is not necessarily the end of anything. The
>losing party can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. It wouldn't be
>unusual for higher courts to overturn decisions of lower courts.

Rhino

7/25/2013 2:19:00 PM

On 2013-07-25 8:56 AM, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:22:33 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2013 6:26 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:43:14 -0400, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/07/2013 5:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> This morning there was a victory for common sense in the Ninth Circuit
>>>>> appeals court ruling in the Fox v. Dish case over Dish's AutoHopper
>>>>> technology.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/739474-fox...
>>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/10340723925/appeals-court-broadcasters-cant-use-copyright-to-block-commercial-skip...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An interesting case and precedent.
>>>
>>> Here's an abstruse legal question that I don't know the answer to: is
>>> the holding binding precedent since there is no final judgment? I
>>> guess it probably is.
>>>
>>> Preliminary injunction decisions generally are the end of injunction
>>> litigation, but not always. But since the only purpose of a trial is
>>> to obtain a final finding of fact, it wouldn't have any impact on
>>> findings of law.
>>>
>> I'm not a lawyer and I'm not American so I can't begin to respond to
>> your point from a basis of personal knowledge. If you're saying that I'm
>> misusing the term "precedent", you are likely right. I'm not sure
>> whether a ruling like this one is rightfully considered a precedent.
>
> I apologize - I was not implying any criticism of you in the least.

Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't sense any venom on your part but I
couldn't quite see where you were coming from either....

> My
> point was that I, who handled this precise sort of issue a lot in my
> career, had to stop and figure it out.
>
I often use the term "thinking out loud" when I do that ;-)

> This is binding precedent in every federal court (and every state
> court considering a question of federal law) in the 9th Circuit:
> California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona.
>
> This is probably the most liberal circuit in the United States.
>
> The decision is binding and can be overruled in only three ways: 1) By
> the Supreme Court issuing a "writ of certiorari" and subsequently
> reversing it, 2) by the entirety of all the circuit judges of the 9th
> Circuit issuing an order that it be reheard "en banc", that is, by the
> entirety. I think there are 27 of them. Anyway, this has already
> been refused; 3) by Congress changing the law (or Constitutional
> amendment, if its a Constitutional case).
>
> Oh, yes. Hawaii and Alaska, and the Pacific Islands territories are
> also in this circuit :)
>
That makes the decision a lot more binding than I had expected. I had
assumed there were a few more layers of courts before the case could
ever go to the Supreme Court.

> I try to be more of a resource for people who want to know what's
> actually going on than a Mr. Know-it-all, not always successfully.
>

There's a lot to be said for someone who injects relevant facts into a
discussion. Too much of the time, people who aren't expert in something
argue about it without knowing most of the underlying facts, some of
which would change their views if they were known....

>> I also agree that this is not necessarily the end of anything. The
>> losing party can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. It wouldn't be
>> unusual for higher courts to overturn decisions of lower courts.

--
Rhino

Mason Barge

7/25/2013 5:24:00 PM

On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:19:13 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:

>On 2013-07-25 8:56 AM, Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:22:33 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/07/2013 6:26 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:43:14 -0400, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/07/2013 5:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> This morning there was a victory for common sense in the Ninth Circuit
>>>>>> appeals court ruling in the Fox v. Dish case over Dish's AutoHopper
>>>>>> technology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/739474-fox...
>>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/10340723925/appeals-court-broadcasters-cant-use-copyright-to-block-commercial-skip...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting case and precedent.
>>>>
>>>> Here's an abstruse legal question that I don't know the answer to: is
>>>> the holding binding precedent since there is no final judgment? I
>>>> guess it probably is.
>>>>
>>>> Preliminary injunction decisions generally are the end of injunction
>>>> litigation, but not always. But since the only purpose of a trial is
>>>> to obtain a final finding of fact, it wouldn't have any impact on
>>>> findings of law.
>>>>
>>> I'm not a lawyer and I'm not American so I can't begin to respond to
>>> your point from a basis of personal knowledge. If you're saying that I'm
>>> misusing the term "precedent", you are likely right. I'm not sure
>>> whether a ruling like this one is rightfully considered a precedent.
>>
>> I apologize - I was not implying any criticism of you in the least.
>
>Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't sense any venom on your part but I
>couldn't quite see where you were coming from either....
>
>> My
>> point was that I, who handled this precise sort of issue a lot in my
>> career, had to stop and figure it out.
>>
>I often use the term "thinking out loud" when I do that ;-)
>
>> This is binding precedent in every federal court (and every state
>> court considering a question of federal law) in the 9th Circuit:
>> California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona.
>>
>> This is probably the most liberal circuit in the United States.
>>
>> The decision is binding and can be overruled in only three ways: 1) By
>> the Supreme Court issuing a "writ of certiorari" and subsequently
>> reversing it, 2) by the entirety of all the circuit judges of the 9th
>> Circuit issuing an order that it be reheard "en banc", that is, by the
>> entirety. I think there are 27 of them. Anyway, this has already
>> been refused; 3) by Congress changing the law (or Constitutional
>> amendment, if its a Constitutional case).
>>
>> Oh, yes. Hawaii and Alaska, and the Pacific Islands territories are
>> also in this circuit :)
>>
>That makes the decision a lot more binding than I had expected. I had
>assumed there were a few more layers of courts before the case could
>ever go to the Supreme Court.

Just three levels for the feds:
1) Trial courts (district courts, which have plenary jursidiction, and
specialty courts like bankruptcy court);
2) Courts of appeals (12 geographical and one special);
3) Supreme Court.

A decision by a court of appeals, such as the 9th Circuit, is 100%
binding in the states within its jurisdiction. Because of this, you
can have different laws in different parts of the country. One of the
most compelling reasons for the Supreme Court to accept a case is that
there is a "conflict among the circuits".

>> I try to be more of a resource for people who want to know what's
>> actually going on than a Mr. Know-it-all, not always successfully.
>>
>
>There's a lot to be said for someone who injects relevant facts into a
>discussion. Too much of the time, people who aren't expert in something
>argue about it without knowing most of the underlying facts, some of
>which would change their views if they were known....

Well, I've done plenty of that too :)

comp.lang.ruby

Active dutch spoken usergroup

wimpunk

Rhino

Mason Barge

Rhino

Mason Barge

x Login to ForumsZone