I don’t know much about the “likelihood of success on the merits” part, but I am impressed by the way another traditional element of the injunction question comes out–a little something we call “weighing of harms”:
In various countries, plaintiffs have sought court orders to halt the operation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland, with the most extraordinary of allegations: that the experiment may create a black hole that will devour the Earth.
Up until now, the various lawsuits filed against the LHC have faltered. But if the right kind of claim is filed in the proper court, a judge may soon have to face the question of whether an injunction might be needed to save the world.
Over at Dean’s World Eric Rall is asking how exactly did the cost of medical care get so expensive beginning in the 1980’s?
I threw out this idea:
I’d say, yeah, an acceleration of the completely predictable outcome of the third-party-payer system, plus vastly enhanced technological capabilities. Thanks in part to the trial lawyers and in part to cultural factors, developing technology and the threat of liability for failure to utilize it made it more or less mandatory for doctors, at least in private practice, to max out on technological solutions — especially in diagnosis — utilizing techniques meant to solve the hardest problems. Also, the “average” medical technique is a lot less average as your population gets older and older and more and more medically complicated.
Makes sense, no?
My old friend and colleague John Howley is now the CEO of Davies Energy, a global energy efficiency company.
I like energy efficiency.
I’m not obsessive about energy efficiency on the petty scale, and I am suspicious of its politicization, but looking all around me I have always been struck by the massive waste of juice out there at every level.
I mention this because I see now that John is also turning his interests toward blogging about energy efficiency. Okay, so maybe he is a little obsessive about it, but, hey, it’s putting food on the table and probably putting the table under the food, too. But not only this, I see that his so far lightly-posted blog — JOHN HOWLEY’S GREEN ENERGY— is not only just full of common sense stuff, it’s not insane.
I like not insane.
I hope John (who, really, I always knew was not insane, by virtue of the easy recourse I had to comparison with insane people at the place where we used to work together) posts some more, and maybe that he’ll have some non-insane effect on energy policy around here, and everywhere else. Am I crazy to think that?
TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH BEHIND the Jupiter impact. “Something invaded our solar system and whacked Jupiter, but professional astronomers were looking the other way at the time. Now, as the shock wave slowly subsides, astronomers are working around the clock to find out exactly what hit Jupiter – and why they didn’t see it coming.
Please do. But meanwhile, Dr. Scientist, please stop demanding more and more of your mathematically honed, rational and flawless control over politics, ethics, economics and the rest of life.
Nothing personal. Love your work, really. But if a measure of humility from the “rocket scientists” is in any way one of the results of this cataclysmic impact, then, why, we’ll know exactly why it happened.
Wired.com says the sky is falling because Apple is, surprise, letting business considerations govern who does and doesn’t get to sell stuff for iPhones, and under what conditions:
Free Press, a group that advocates the idea of an open internet — that is, one in which consumers have the right to browse the web and run internet applications without restrictions — is the latest of several organizations to call out Apple for its inconsistencies. Free Press alleges that Apple crippled SlingPlayer, a TV-streaming application for iPhone, so that it would only work on a Wi-Fi connection; the initial version worked with a 3G cellular network connection as well as Wi-Fi. The SlingPlayer restriction is inconsistent with Apple’s approval of the Major League Baseball application, which provides live-streaming of sports events on both Wi-Fi and 3G connections, the group said.
“That strikes us as odd and potentially nefarious because it really represents a carrier picking and choosing applications for consumers as opposed to letting consumers decide which videos they want to watch,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. “It’s exactly the sort of thing you’d expect in an internet experience that’s controlled by the carrier.”
Yeah, it’s exactly the sort of thing you’d expect from a business that is in the business of, uh, business. Instapundit, seizing on the title of this piece, “How Apple and AT&T Are Closing The Mobile Web,” understandably says he “doesn’t like the sound of this” — which, of course, is exactly why that title was chosen. But it’s okay, Glenn. It just sounds like free enterprise. That’s a sound you like almost as much as a puppy in a blender!
The anti-Apple screed segues into a legitimate look about the real technological limits the mobile web is approaching, in terms of network capacity. But it completely elides the difference between “the Internet” and “the mobile Web” and “what you can put on an iPhone.” I mean, come on:
“If you’re going to allow video to stream on the 3G network, you can’t pick and choose which video services operate,” Scott said. “You have to let them all operate, otherwise that’s not the internet.”
You “can’t”? Otherwise, what again? Oh — “it’s not the Internet.”
What a bunch of babies it is, this “Internet” you speak of, Wired.