SSPP # 7.2 Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) (Electronic Maximum annual weighted average PUE of 1.4 by FY15 )

Google’s ultra-efficient data centers, with a PUE of 1.12, are beating the PUE curve by miles.

When the project is complete later this year (all done while the existing data center remained in operation!), the data center's annual PUE will drop from 1.5 to 1.2, saving 20 percent of its annual electrical cost.

The MGHPCC is targeting a PUE of less than 1.3. A recent report cites typical data center PUEs at 1.9. This means that our facility can expect to

Triton Shared Computing Cluster Triton Shared Computing Cluster (TSCC) is a new computational cluster for research computing available through UC San Diego's RCI program. Designed as a turnkey, high performance computing resource, it features flexible usage and business models and professional system administration. Unlike traditional clusters, TSCC is a collaborative system wherein the majority of nodes are purchased and shared by the cluster users, known as condo owners. In addition to the participant-contributed condo nodes, TSCC has a collection of hotel nodes which are available to condo owners and to other researchers on a rental basis. The condo and hotel configurations contain both standard two-socket nodes and GPU nodes. The hotel configuration also features eight 512GB large-memory nodes. The table below provides a brief technical summary of TSCC.

Personally, I think Digital Humanities is about building things,” said Ramsay in a polarizing talk at the MLA convention in 2011, printed in Defining Digital Humanities. Unlike many theorists, however, he was willing to make this demand concrete: “Do you have to know how to code? I’m a tenured professor of digital humanities and I say ‘yes.’ ”

Collaborate for God's sake!: EVERY organization dealing with data is dealing with these problems. And governments need to work together on this. This is where open source presents invaluable process lessons for government: working collaboratively, and in the open, can float all boats much higher than they currently are. Whether it's putting your scripts on GitHub, asking and answering questions on the Open Data StackExchange, or helping out others on the Socrata support forums, collaboration is a key lever for this government technology problem.

Specifically, we explore three key usage modes (see Figure 1): • HPC in the Cloud , in which researchers out - source entire applications to current public and/ or private Cloud platforms; • HPC plus Cloud , focused on exploring scenarios in which clouds can complement HPC/grid re - sources with cloud services to support science and engineering application workflows—for ex - ample, to support heterogeneous requirements or unexpected spikes in demand; and • HPC as a Service , focused on exposing HPC/grid resources using elastic on-demand cloud abstrac - tions, aiming to combine the flexibility of cloud models with the performance of HPC systems

Mike Olson of Cloudera is on record as predicting that Spark will be the replacement for Hadoop MapReduce. Just about everybody seems to agree, except perhaps for Hortonworks folks betting on the more limited and less mature Tez. Spark’s biggest technical advantages as a general data processing engine are probably: The Directed Acyclic Graph processing model. (Any serious MapReduce-replacement contender will probably echo that aspect.) A rich set of programming primitives in connection with that model. Support also for highly-iterative processing, of the kind found in machine learning. Flexible in-memory data structures, namely the RDDs (Resilient Distributed Datasets). A clever approach to fault-tolerance.

Clouds establish a new division of responsibilities between platform operators and users than have trad itionally e x- isted in computing infrastructure. In private clouds, where all participants belong to the same organization, this cr e- ates new barriers to effective communication and resource usage. In this paper, we present poncho , a tool that i m- plements APIs that enable communication between cloud operators and their users, for the purposes of minimizing impact of administrative operations and load shedding on highly - utilized private clouds.

One of the critical pieces of infrastructure provided by this system is a mechanism that can be used for load shedding, as well as a way to communicate with users when this action is required . As a building block, load shedding enables a whole host of more advanced r e- source management capabilities, like spot instances, advanced reservations, and fairshare scheduling

Over the last twenty years, the open source community has provided more and more software on which the world’s High Performance Computing (HPC) systems depend for performance and productivity. The community has invested millions of dollars and years of effort to build key components. But although the investments in these separate software elements have been tremendously valuable, a great deal of productivity has also been lost be cause of the lack of planning, coordination, and key integration of technologies necessary to make them work together smoothly and efficiently, both within individual PetaScale systems and between different systems. It seems clear that this completely unco ordinated development model will not provide the software needed to support the unprecedented parallelism required for peta/exascale computation on millions of cores, or the flexibility required to exploit new hardware models and features, such as transact ional memory, speculative execution, and GPUs. This report describes the work of the community to prepare for the challenges of exascale computing, ultimately combing their efforts in a coordinated International Exascale Software Project.

facilitate the global conversation on every scholarly work

which leads into our key step in creating a more collaborative and open scientific community.

Users can choose to keep their highlights and annotations private, or to share them with the world, which leads into our key step in creating a more collaborative and open scientific community.

A framework built for collaborative real-time annotations on articles.

Reproducibility

it empowers the entire scientific community by enabling new advancements and tools for scholarly communication.

science will produce improved results and better serve the community.

We hope that if we promote collaboration within the scientific process

“To a soundtrack of heavy metal, free-software geekstar Jono Bacon recounts the story of how he learned to gently yet productively manhandle groups of unruly Internet folks gathered around a common topic or cause. His process and methods are set out in his book, The Art of Community , where Jono’s non-ego-driven account of community building will aid all manner of bosses, since almost every subject matter these days has a community with hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and even (as in the case of World of Warcraft) millions of people clamoring around it. (Even David Hasselhoff!)

What intrigued me when I first walked into Neil’s living room was the concept of a collaboration- driven ethos , although at the time I had no idea what those words mean

coming together to share an ethos : the combined set of beliefs, customs, and sentiment that flows between like-minded people.

One person who really didn’t seem to understand was Neil’s wife. Somewhat bemused, and referring to us as his “Internet friends,” Neil’s significant other decided tonight was the night for visiting a long-lost (or possibly ignored) relative, rather than sticking around and faking interest.

Community is a funny beast. Most people—the kind who watch talent shows on television and occasionally dip bread in oil in an expensive restaurant—don’t understand people like Neil. Why on earth would this guy decide to open his home, free of charge, to a collection of strangers who met on the Internet? Why would he want to spend an evening drinking tea and making jokes about something called “Emacs”?

Before I knew it, I found myself on a street I had never been to, in a city I had never been to, about to head into a room full of people I had never met before, all united by one simple symbol... 1 A penguin. An hour before, that penguin had seemed so inviting and friendly. It was a symbol that encompassed everything about the movement it represented, a movement that came together in spirit and mind to build a system that drove a new generation of technology and freedom... a movement that celebrated this drive by forming user groups in unknown streets, in unknown cities, and with unknown people.

“Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together.” —Vincent van Gogh

Chapter 1, The Art of Community We begin the book with a bird’s-eye view of how communities function at a social science level. We cover the underlying nuts and bolts of how people form communities, what keeps them involved, and the basis and opportunities behind these interactions. Chapter 2, Planning Your Community Next we carve out and document a blueprint and strategy for your community and its future growth. Part of this strategy includes the target objectives and goals and how the community can be structured to achieve them. PREFACE xix Chapter 3, Communicating Clearly At the heart of community is communication, and great communicators can have a tremendously positive impact. Here we lay down the communications backbone and the best practices associated with using it

THE ART OF

API Management Using Github

API Services During my monitoring of the API space, I came across a new API monitoring service called AutoDevBot, which monitors all your API endpoints, and notifies you when something goes wrong. Pretty standard feature in a new wave of API integration tools and services I’m seeing emerge, but what is interesting is they use Github as a central place to store the settings for the API monitoring service. AutoDevBot has you clone their settings template, make changes you need to monitor your APIs, register and fire up AutoDevBot to monitor. Seems like a pretty simple way for API service providers to engage with API providers, allowing them to manage all the configuration for API services alongside their own internal API operations.

Github As The Central Presence, Definition, Configuration, And Source Code For Your API Posted on 02-05-2014 It is easy to think of Github as a central repository for your open source code—most developers understand that. I have written before about the many ways to use Github as part of your API management strategy, but in the last few months I'm really seeing Github playing more of a central role in the overall lifecycle of an API.

But when asked what he would have done differently, the answer was easy. "I would have got rid of the slash slash after the colon. You don't really need it. It just seemed like a good idea at the time."

Twenty-five years on from the web's inception, its creator has urged the public to re-engage with its original design: a decentralised internet that at its very core, remains open to all.

Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices

The fourth of the theories is as yet the least influential but seems to be gaining strength. Its key ideas are that human nature causes people to flourish more under some conditions than under others, and that social and political institutions should be organized to facilitate that flourishing. What, more specifically, are the conditions or “functionings” that enable people to flourish?

The innate qualities of intellectual pr operty, however, in combination with INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 15   strong economic motivations have led U.S. intellectual property policy to operate according to rights - based, non - utilitarian theory, possibly as a result of lobbying (capture theory).

The U.S. social contract establishes a utilitarian basis for protection of intellectual property rights: protection as a means of encouraging innovation.

As intellectual property lacks scarcity, and the protection of it fails the Lockean Proviso, there is no natural right to intellectual property. As such, the justification for intellectual property rights arises from the social con tract, and in the case of the United States, the Constitution.

By contrast, any positive or negative effects that intellectual property rights have on the wider populace are diffused, and any individual member of the wider populace has little motive (and potentially insufficient means) to overco me the significant barriers to active political lobbying. As a result, the intrinsic trend is for intellectual INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 11   property holders to actively lobby, largely unopposed, for greater rights protections. (Fisher, 1999, Sect. II. C.)

In addition to broad economic trends affecting domestic politics evenly, Fisher also notes the uneven distribution of effects stemming from intellectual property rights (1999, Sect. II. C.). The positive effects of intellectual property rights accrue strongl y to a small number of rights - holders (the paper assumes that there are no significant negative effects to rights - holders); for this reason, rights - holders have significant motive (and potentially greater means) to overcome the significant barriers to acti ve political lobbying.

Fisher outlines three trends : (1) the increasing number of citizens owning , or employed by owners of , intellectual property; (2) the United States’ economic position as an increasingly net exporter of intellectual property; and (3) the increasing investment companies have made in intellectual property in terms of research, development, brand - establishment, etc. (1999, Sect. II. A.).

Ladas and Parry note that patent law originated in a manufacturing economy when patents were beginning to acquire new importance , and that patents have increased in popularity along with the rise of the economy (2009, n. pag.)

As such, the conclusion is that intellectual property is not ‘property’ in the Lockean sense. If it were, then intellectual property protections would deserve no mo re policy debate than whether police ought to chase thieves. As it is not, the justification for intel lectual property must be sought in the social contract. As noted above, the social contract for the United State s, the Constitution, specifies in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 that Congress may pass laws “ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respec t ive Writings and Discoveries.” This background clarifies the discussion considerably : • There is no natural law basis for intellectual property rights • Thus, intellectual property rights must be provided for by the social contract. • The U.S. social contract as elucidated in the Constitution specifies a utilitarian basis for intellectual property rights (“to promote the progress... by securing for limited times...")

Property Status Conclusions and Implications Intellectual property is neither ‘scarce,’ nor does the taking of it leave “enough, and as good, left in comm on for others” (the Lockean proviso) (Long, 1995, n. pag.; Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).

Invention is a process that builds on prior thought, which is why the patent process INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 9   requires disclosure of means and methods. For this reason, this paper will accept that intellectual property fails the Lockean Proviso, as suggested by Menell (1999, p. 129 ).

According to Barnett in Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change : “No innovation springs full - blown out of nothing: it must have antecedents ” (1953, p. 7).

The “romantic conception of authorship” mentioned earlier as a formative trend of the rights - based theory of intellectual property is evident in the first pe rspective: t he notion that ideas are individual achievements and of indeterminate origin (not reliant on a process of building) (Fisher, 1999, Sect. II. B).

For instance, if a certain individual owns the idea for airplanes, there are always ideas for gliders, helicopters, and devices yet unknown for other individuals to own. On the other hand, each idea is unique, so the taking of any idea as private property leaves none of that idea for others (Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27). The first perspective would assert that there are always other ideas, while the second perspective would assert that ideas build upon each other, and that just because ideas are similar in one respect does not mean they are similar in other respects. Under the first perspective, the taking of intelle ctual property passes the Lockean Proviso, and under the second perspective, it fails.

On one hand, there are infinite ideas, and so the taking of one idea as private property clearly leaves “enough,” and debatably “as good” for others (Locke, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 8   1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).

Here, there is disagreement about whether intellectual property violates the Lockean Proviso.

The limit of any property rights that can be claimed in this manner are defined in the ‘Lockean Proviso’ which states that the aforementioned process of establishing private property only operates “when there is enoug h, and as good, left in common for others” (Bogart, 1985, p. 828; Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).

The Privatization of the Natural State Proponents also invoke Locke’s discussion of the making of private property from the natural state by the joining of one’s efforts to the natural state (Menell, 1999, p. 129). The argument goes that authors (ar tists, inventors, etc.) join their efforts to the natural state of undefined ideas, and through their efforts arrive at an intellectual work; and by that effort, they may make a legitimate claim on that intellectual work as their property (Menell, 1999, p. 129; Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 26).

these traditional property rights, as suggested by Locke, depend on the scarcity of that property (1995, n. pag.). I f ‘Joe’ owns property and ‘Sue’ acquires it, then Joe no longer has it, and Sue has harmed Joe (by stealing). Joe’s property is scarce.

Fisher points out that the rights - based, non - utilitarian theory is greatly influenced by two concepts: (1) the western ideology of property from Locke (that people are entitled to own the fruits of their labors, and should be rewarded in proportion to their contributions); and (2) the “romantic conception of authorship” of the divinely inspired individual genius or artist (1999, Sect. II. B).

The critical difference comes out in the details, especially the amount of time rights are protected and the scope of rights allowed

This is understatement to be sure, but the debate has been principally between two theories: a utilitarian policy theory, and a rights - based , non - utilitarian property theory (Long, 1995, n.pag.) .

Unlike in copyright law, where derivative works require authorization, new inventions can incorporate prior inventions wit hout permission — in these cases, the patents are independent of each other (the patent of one inventor does not give him or her any rights over the patent of the other inventor).

U.S. intellectual property law originates (as law) from the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes copyright and patent law possible (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 4   respective Writings and Discoveries”) ,

U.S. property policy remains largely fixed in its establishe d mindset of defending intellectual property rights for their own sake, instead of as a means to encourage innovation.

The U.S. policy response followed an established pattern of defending intellectual property holders’ rights with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

First, the popularization of the Internet upset the copyright paradigm and led to vigorous public and governmental lobbying by copyright holders in the face of rampant infringem ent.

This paper establishes cause to suspect that current intellectual property policy overstep s utilitarian justification, and suggests that a clearer distinction should be drawn between the proper role of U.S. law in intellectual property (that which promotes innovation) and moral questions of creator’s rights.

The U . S . Co nstitution firmly grounds the proper role of intellectual property policy as utilitarian .

Keywords : anticommons, copyright, intellectual property, Lockean Proviso, patent, property rights, state of nature, trademark, utilitarian theory

The mathematics of almost all eigenvalue problems encountered in wave physics is essentially the same, but the richest source of such problems is quantum mechanics, where the eigenvalues are the energies of stationary states ("levels"), rather than frequencies as in acoustics or optics, and the operator is the hamiltonian.

If the Riemann hypothesis is true, Im tn = 0 for all n, and the function f(u), constructed from the primes, has a discrete spectrum; that is, the support of its Fourier transform is discrete. If the Riemann hypothesis is false, this is not the case. The frequencies tn are reminiscent of the decomposition of a musical sound into its constituent harmonics. Therefore there is a sense in which we can give a one-line nontechnical statement of the Riemann hypothesis: "The primes have music in them."

You're as bad as that character in Moliere who didn't know he was talking prose! You've b een committing philosophical nonsense with your \rigorous pro ofs of existence". Don't you know that what exists has to b e observed, or at least observable?

Well, this whole thing was cleared up by the logician Tarski, I guess, and some others, mayb e Russell or Peano. Anyhow, what you do is, you write down the axioms of your theory in a formal language with a given list of symb ols or alphab et. Then you write down the hyp othesis of your theorem in the same symb olism. Then you show that you can transform the hyp othesis step by step, using the rules of logic, till you get the conclusion. That's a pro of. Student : Really? That's amazing! I've taken elementary and ad- vanced calculus, basic algebra, and top ology, and I've never seen that done. I:M: : Oh, of course no one ever really do es it. It would take forever! You just show that you could do it, that's sucient.

The intended readers (all twelve of them) can de- co de the formal presentation, detect the new idea hidden in lemma 4, ignore the routine and uninteresting calculations of lemmas 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and see what the author is doing and why he do es it. But for the noninitiate, this is a cipher that will never yield its secret.

To read his pro ofs, one must b e privy to a whole sub culture of motivations, standard arguments and examples, habits of thought and agreed-up on mo des of reasoning.

is writing follows an unbreakable convention: to conceal any sign that the author or the intended reader is a human b eing. It gives the impression that, from the stated denitions, the desired results follow infallibly by a purely mechanical pro cedure. In fact, no computing ma- chine has ever b een built that could accept his denitions as inputs.

It is imp ortant b ecause Professor Nameless stated it and gave a partial solution which, unfortunately, no one but Professor Nameless was ever able to understand.

It has never o ccurred to him to question what the word \exist" means here. One could try to discover its meaning by watching him at work and observing what the word \exist" signies op erationally.

e can think of no condemnation more damning than to say of a student, \He do esn't even know what a pro of is". Yet he is able to give no coherent explanation of what is meant by rigor, or what is required to make a pro of rigorous.

However, the mathematician regards his work as part of the very structure of the world, containing truths which are valid forever, from the b eginning of time, even in the most remote corner of the universe.

We will construct a p ortrait of the \ideal mathematician". By this we do not mean the p erfect mathematician, the mathematician without de- fect or limitation. Rather, we mean to describ e the most mathematician- like mathematician, as one might describ e the ideal thoroughbred grey- hound, or the ideal thirteenth-century monk.

The architect of Berlin's new main train station won a lawsuit against Deutsche Bahn AG in a court decision that forces the German s tate - owned rail company to replace the building's ceiling with his original design. Architect Meinhard von Gerkan sued Deutsche Bahn for distorting his plan by exchanging his ceiling, designed to resemble a cathedral's nave, for one made of flat metal des igned by another architect. German copyright rules protect the integrity of work by artists and architects.

In his ruling, judge Edmundo Rodríguez Achútegui recognized that Calatrava’s rights as author of the bridge had been infringed, but he ruled that the public utility of the addition took precedence over this private right. “In addition to constituting a singular artistic creation suitable for protection, the work is public one, offering a service to the citizens, and thus satisfies a public interest,” he said. “If we weigh these interests, the public must prevail over the private.

Following my original question, I wanted to add two quotes. First, an excellent quote on originality by the French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard, : ‘It’s not where you take things from. It’s where you take them to.’ Second, Jim Jarmusch who was quoting Godard. “Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations. Architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable. Originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery—celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said, ‘It’s not where you take things from. It’s where you take them to.’” Both are similar to, but much better than the worn Picasso quote : “Good artists copy, great artists steal.”

1960 and 1975, states more than doubled their rate of appropriations for higher education, from four dollars per thousand in state revenue to ten.

From 1945 to 1975, the number of undergraduates increased five-fold, and graduate students nine-fold. PhDs graduating one year got jobs teaching the ever-larger cohort of freshman arriving the next.

That changed with the end of WWII. Waves of discharged soldiers subsidized by the GI Bill, joined by the children of the expanding middle class, wanted or needed a college degree.

In the first half of the 20th century, higher education was a luxury and a rarity in the U.S. Only 5% or so of adults, overwhelmingly drawn from well-off families, had attended college.

Interest in using the internet to slash the price of higher education is being driven in part by hope for new methods of teaching, but also by frustration with the existing system. The biggest threat those of us working in colleges and universities face isn’t video lectures or online tests. It’s the fact that we live in institutions perfectly adapted to an environment that no longer exists.

As long as the income was incoming, we were happy to trade funding our institutions with our money (tuition and endowment) for funding it with other people’s money (loans and grants.) And so long as college remained a source of cheap and effective job credentials, our new sources of support—students with loans, governments with research agendas—were happy to let us regard ourselves as priests instead of service workers.

Golden Age economics ended. Golden Age assumptions did not. For 30 wonderful years, we had been unusually flush, and we got used to it, re-designing our institutions to assume unending increases in subsidized demand. This did not happen. The year it started not happening was 1975.

The other way to help these students would be to dramatically reduce the price or time required to get an education of acceptable quality (and for acceptable read “enabling the student to get a better job”, their commonest goal.) This is a worse option in every respect except one, which is that it may be possible.

After the massive expansion of higher education into job training, the promising 18-year-old who goes straight to a residential college is now the odd one out.

The proportion of part-time and non-tenure track teachers went from less than half of total faculty, before 1975, to over two-thirds now.

If we can’t keep raising costs for students (we can’t) and if no one is coming to save us (they aren’t), then the only remaining way to help these students is to make a cheaper version of higher education for the new student majority.

Arguing that we need to keep the current system going just long enough to get the subsidy the world owes us is really just a way of preserving an arrangement that works well for elites—tenured professors, rich students, endowed institutions—but increasingly badly for everyone else.

Each of these changes looked small and reversible at the time. Over the decades, though, we’ve behaved like an embezzler who starts by taking only what he means to replace, but ends up extracting so much that embezzlement becomes the system.

The Benjamin Franklin Programming Practice Model

Benjamin developed his method in his early teens and worked hard at practicing his craft. Here is the exceprt with a few added line breaks for legibility. About this time I met with an odd volume of the Spectator. It was the third. I had never before seen any of them. I bought it, read it over and over, and was much delighted with it. I thought the writing excellent, and wished, if possible, to imitate it. With this view I took some of the papers, and, making short hints of the sentiment in each sentence, laid them by a few days, and then, without looking at the book, try'd to compleat the papers again, by expressing each hinted sentiment at length, and as fully as it had been expressed before, in any suitable words that should come to hand. Then I compared my Spectator with the original, discovered some of my faults, and corrected them. But I found I wanted a stock of words, or a readiness in recollecting and using them, which I thought I should have acquired before that time if I had gone on making verses; since the continual occasion for words of the same import, but of different length, to suit the measure, or of different sound for the rhyme, would have laid me under a constant necessity of searching for variety, and also have tended to fix that variety in my mind, and make me master of it. Therefore I took some of the tales and turned them into verse; and, after a time, when I had pretty well forgotten the prose, turned them back again. I also sometimes jumbled my collections of hints into confusion, and after some weeks endeavored to reduce them into the best order, before I began to form the full sentences and compleat the paper. This was to teach me method in the arrangement of thoughts.

The hard part is teaching the consequences of each choice.

National governments are also weighing in on the issue. The UK government aims this April to make text-mining for non-commercial purposes exempt from copyright, allowing academics to mine any content they have paid for.

“Our plan is just to wait for the copyright exemption to come into law in the United Kingdom so we can do our own content-mining our own way, on our own platform, with our own tools,” says Mounce. “Our project plans to mine Elsevier’s content, but we neither want nor need the restricted service they are announcing here.”

some researchers feel that a dangerous precedent is being set. They argue that publishers wrongly characterize text-mining as an activity that requires extra rights to be granted by licence from a copyright holder, and they feel that computational reading should require no more permission than human reading. “The right to read is the right to mine,” says Ross Mounce of the University of Bath, UK, who is using content-mining to construct maps of species’ evolutionary relationships.

"We should have some ways of connecting programs like garden hose--screw in another segment when it becomes necessary to massage data in another way. This is the way of IO also."

Point 3 is almost certainly the one that still bugs Doug. All sorts of mechanisms and utilities are around and used (source code control, registries, WWW search engines, and on and on), but the problem of indexing and finding relevant information is tougher today than ever before, even on one's own hard disk, let alone the WWW.

3. Our library filing scheme should allow for rather general indexing, responsibility, generations, data path switching.

1. We should have some ways of connecting programs like garden hose--screw in another segment when it becomes when it becomes necessary to massage data in another way. This is the way of IO also.

Point 1 is the interesting one. It provides the historical background for Doug's encouragement of the Unix pipe notation. The linked paper gives appropriate credit; in interviews, Doug has been explicit in saying that he very nearly exercised managerial control to get pipes installed.

Advice from Doug Mcilroy

The Backblaze environment is the exact opposite. I do not believe I could dream up worse conditions to study and compare drive reliability. It's hard to believe they plotted this out and convened a meeting to outline a process to buy the cheapest drives imaginable, from all manner of ridiculous sources, install them into varying (and sometimes flawed) chassis, then stack them up and subject them to entirely different workloads and environmental conditions... all with the purpose of determining drive reliability.

The enthusiast in me loves the Backblaze story. They are determined to deliver great value to their customers, and will go to any length to do so. Reading the blog posts about the extreme measures they took was engrossing, and I'm sure they enjoyed rising to the challenge. Their Storage Pod is a compelling design that has been field-tested extensively, and refined to provide a compelling price point per GB of storage.

What is missing is a space between the $( and the following (, to avoid the arithmetic expression syntax. The section on command substitution in the shell command language specification actually warns for that:

"I have dragged you through a lot of different concepts and methods so far. I haven't been complete because we won't have the time. But I have selected the sample features to present to you with an eye toward giving you a maximum chance to identify these as being something significant to your own type of work. I avoided discussing techniques applicable to esoteric problem-solving processes--although some of them display especially stimulating possibilities to those with appropriate backgrounds. The ability to structure arguments organized in English-language statements, and to make use of the linking and tagging capabilities at all levels of the structure, can be seen to lead to many interesting and promising new capabilities for organizing your thoughts and actions. I think you could picture learning these tricks and using them in your own work.

"Anyway, with the quick flexibility available to me for structuring arguments, and semi-automatic application of special tagging and linking rules, I find it really quite easy to construct, use, or modify sophisticated process structuring. And I can turn right around and apply this toward improving my abllity for structuring argumentg and processes. The initial, straightforward capabilities for manipulating symbol structures, that were more or less obviously availed me by the computer have given to me a power to participate in more sophisticated processes that capitalize more fully upon the computer's capability--processes which are very significant to my net effectiveness, and yet which weren't particularly apparent to us as either possible or useful in the days before we started harnessing computers to the human's workaday activities in this direct way.'

Interdependence and Regeneration2c5c7 A very important feature to be noted from the discussion in this section bears upon the interdependence among the various types of structuring which are involved in the H-LAM/T system, where the capability for doing each type of structuring is dependent upon the capability for doing one or more of the other types of structuring. (Assuming that the physical structuring of the system remains basically unchanged during the system's operation, we exclude its dependence upon other factors in this discussion.) 2c5c7a This interdependence actually has a cyclic, regenerative nature to it which is very significant to us. We have seen how the capability for mental structuring is finally dependent, down the chain, upon the process structuring (human, artifact, composite) that enables symbol-structure manipulation. But it also is evident that the process structuring is dependent not only upon basic human and artifact process capabilities, but upon the ability of the human to learn how to execute processes--and no less important, upon the ability of the human to select, organize, and modify processes from his repertoire to structure a higher-order process that he can execute. Thus, a capability for structuring and executing processes is partially dependent upon the human's mental structuring, which in turn is partially dependent upon his process structuring (through concept and symbol structuring), which is partially dependent upon his mental structuring, etc. 2c5c7b All of this means that a significant improvement in symbol-structure manipulation through better process structuring (initially perhaps through much better artifacts) should enable us to develop improvements in concept and mental-structure manipulations that can in turn enable us to organize and execute symbol-manipulation processes of increased power. To most people who initially consider the possibilities for computer-like devices augmenting the human intellect, it is only the one-pass improvement that comes to mind, which presents a picture that is relatively barren compared to that which emerges when one considers this regenerative interaction. 2c5c7c We can confidently expect the development of much more powerful concepts pertaining to the manner in which symbol structures can be manipulated and portrayed, and correspondingly more complex manipulation processes that in the first pass would have been beyond the human's power to organize and execute without the better symbol, concept, and mental structuring which his augmented system provided him. These new concepts and processes, beyond our present capabilities to use and thus never developed, will provide a tremendous increased-capability payoff in the future development of our augmentation means.

Physical structuring, the last of the five types which we currently use in our conceptual framework, is nearly self-explanatory. It pretty well represents the artifact component of our augmentation means, insofar as their actual physical construction is concerned.

As we are currently using it, the term includes the organization, study, modification, and execution of processes and process structures. Whereas concept structuring and symbol structuring together represent the language component of our augmentation means, process structuring represents the methodology component (plus a little more, actually). There has been enough previous discussion of process structures that we need not describe the notion here, beyond perhaps an example or two. The individual processes (or actions) of my hands and fingers have to be cooperatively organized if the typewriter is to do my bidding. My successive actions throughout my working day are meant to cooperate toward a certain over-all professional goal.

The other important part of our "language" is the way in which concepts are represented--the symbols and symbol structures. Words structured into phrases, sentences, paragraphs, monographs--charts, lists, diagrams, tables, etc. A given structure of concepts can be represented by any of an infinite number of different symbol structures, some of which would be much better than others for enabling the human perceptual and cognitive apparatus to search out and comprehend the conceptual matter of significance and/or interest to the human. For instance, a concept structure involving many numerical data would generally be much better represented with Arabic rather than Roman numerals and quite likely a graphic structure would be better than a tabular structure.

Concepts seem to be structurable, in that a new concept can be composed of an organization of established concepts. For present purposes, we can view a concept structure as something which we might try to develop on paper for ourselves or work with by conscious thought processes, or as something which we try to communicate to one another in serious discussion. We assume that, for a given unit of comprehension to be imparted, there is a concept structure (which can be consciously developed and displayed) that can be presented to an individual in such a way that it is mapped into a corresponding mental structure which provides the basis for that individual's "comprehending" behavior. Our working assumption also considers that some concept structures would be better for this purpose than others, in that they would be more easily mapped by the individual into workable mental structures, or in that the resulting mental structures enable a higher degree of comprehension and better solutions to problems, or both.

Mental structuring is what we call the internal organization of conscious and unconscious mental images, associations, or concepts (or whatever it is that is organized within the human mind) that somehow manages to provide the human with understanding and the basis for such as judgment, intuition, inference, and meaningful action with respect to his environment.

But at the level of the capability hierarchy where we wish to work, it seems useful to us to distinguish several different types of structuring--even though each type is fundamentally a structuring of the basic physical processes. Tentatively we have isolated five such types--although we are not sure how many we shall ultimately want to use in considering the problem of augmenting the human intellect, nor how we might divide and subdivide these different manifestations of physical-process structuring. We use the terms "mental structuring", "concept structuring", "symbol structuring", "process structuring," and "physical structuring."

The fundamental principle used in building sophisticated capabilities from the basic capabilities is structuring--the special type of structuring (which we have termed synergetic) in which the organization of a group of elements produces an effect greater than the mere addition of their individual effects. Perhaps "purposeful" structuring (or organization) would serve us as well, but since we aren't sure yet how the structuring concept must mature for our needs, we shall tentatively stick with the special modifier, "synergetic." We are developing a growing awareness of the significant and pervasive nature of such structure within every physical and conceptual thing we inspect, where the hierarchical form seems almost universally present as stemming from successive levels of such organization.

Man cannot hope fully to duplicate this mental process artificially, but he certainly ought to be able to learn from it. In minor ways he may even improve, for his records have relative permanency. The first idea, however, to be drawn from the analogy concerns selection. Selection by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized. One cannot hope thus to equal the speed and flexibility with which the mind follows an associative trail, but it should be possible to beat the mind decisively in regard to the permanence and clarity of the items resurrected from storage.

The real heart of the matter of selection, however, goes deeper than a lag in the adoption of mechanisms by libraries, or a lack of development of devices for their use. Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of systems of indexing. When data of any sort are placed in storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from subclass to subclass. It can be in only one place, unless duplicates are used; one has to have rules as to which path will locate it, and the rules are cumbersome. Having found one item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re-enter on a new path. The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain. It has other characteristics, of course; trails that are not frequently followed are prone to fade, items are not fully permanent, memory is transitory. Yet the speed of action, the intricacy of trails, the detail of mental pictures, is awe-inspiring beyond all else in nature.

It affords an immediate step, however, to associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically another. This is the essential feature of the memex. The process of tying two items together is the important thing.

First he runs through an encyclopedia, finds an interesting but sketchy article

For example, imagine you are annotating the second page of a New York Times article. You probably want to see your annotation when you are looking at the article later as a single page, right? Or perhaps you've annotated the HTML for a PLOS ONE article. Wouldn't you like to see those annotations when you are looking at the PDF version of the same article? If annotations were only associated with the URL you happened to be looking at in your browser then the scenarios above would not work, because the documents being annotated all have different URLs.

SUPAP KIRTSAENG, DBA BLUECHRISTINE99, PETITIONER v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

J USTICE B REYER delivered the opinion of the Court.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 11 – 697

Section 109(a) sets forth the “fi rst sale” doctrine as follows: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [the section that grants the owner exclusive distribution rights], the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title . . . is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or other- wise dispose of the possession of that copy

and the doctrine at issue here, the “first sale” doctrine (§109).

These rights are quali- fied, however, by the application of various limitations set forth in the next several sections of the Act, §§107 through 122. Those sections, typically entitled “Limitations on exclusive rights,” include, for example, the principle of “fair use” (§107), permission for limited library archival reproduction, (§108), and the doctrine at issue here, the “first sale” doctrine (§109)

Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants “the owner of copyright under this title” certain “exclusive rights,” including the right “to distribute copies . . . of the copy- righted work to th e public by sale or other transfer of ownership.” 17 U. S. C. §106(3)

A LOCKEAN JUSTIFICATION

Indeed, the object, or res, of intellectual property may be so new that it is unknown to anyone else.

A universal definition of intellectual property might begin by identifying it as nonphysical property which stems from, is identified as, and whose value is based upon some idea or ideas. Furthermore, there must be some additional element of novelty. Indeed, the object, or res, of intellectual property may be so new that it is unknown to anyone else. The novelty, however, does not have to be absolute. What is important is that at the time of propertization the idea is thought to be generally unknown. The re

At the most practical level, intellectual property is the property created or recognized by the existing legal regimes of copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret. n17 We also must include property recognized by similar legal regimes. For example, federal law now protect original semiconductor masks. n18 "Gathered information" is another genre of intellectual property. Copyright law protects the particular arrangement of the contents of telephone directories and reference works, n19 while other forms of gathered information may have quasi-property status under International News Service v. Associated Press. n20

Like most subjects, intellectual property has grey zones on the periphery, such as the right to publicity -- whether, in property style, someone can control his public image.

inasmuch as coming to own intellectual property is often tied to being well-educated. If people become increasingly progressive with increasing education, intellectual property confers economic power on men and women of talent who generally tend to reform society, not because they are haphazard Burkian goblins, but because they have well-informed convictions.

ctual property may be a liberal influence on society

The breakthrough patent that produces a Polaroid company is more the exception than the rule. The rule is the modestly successful novelist, the minor [*292] poet, and the university researcher -- all of whom may profit by licensing or selling their creations.

ecause such accumulation is less typical, the realm of intellectual property has less of the laborer/capitalist hierarchy of Marxist theory.

In the final analysis, intellectual property shares much of the origins and orientation of all forms of property. At the same time, however, it is a more neutral institution than other forms of property: its limited scope and duration tend to prevent the very accumulation of wealth that Burke championed.

One cannot call the history of intellectual property a purely proletarian struggle. While ancient Roman laws afforded a form of copyright protection to authors, n14 the rise of Anglo-Saxon copyright was a saga of publishing interests attempting to protect a concentrated market and a central government attempting to apply a subtle form of censorship to the new technology of the printing press.

But this is only part of the truth. Much intellectual property is produced only after considerable financial investment, whether it be in the research laboratory or in the graduate education of the scientist using the facility.

The conservative influence of property does not, however, depend on primogeniture or even inheritance -- features that gave property a valuable role in Burke's political system as well as in the political theories advanced by Hegel and Plato. n11 Within a single lifetime, property tends to make the property owner more risk-averse. This aversion applies both to public decisions [*291] affecting property, such as taxes, and to personal decisions that might diminish one's property, such as investment strategies and career choices. Inheritance and capital appreciation are only additional characteristics of traditional notions of property that tend to stabilize social stratification.

In the eighteenth century, Edmund Burke argued that property stabilized society and prevented political and social turmoil that, he believed, would result from a purely meritocratic order. n8 Property served as a counterweight protecting the class of persons who possessed it against competition from nonpropertied people of natural ability and talent. To Burke, the French National Assembly -- dominated by upstart lawyers from the provinces -- exemplified the risk of disorder and inexperience of an unpropertied leadership. n9 In contrast, the British parliament, a proper mix of talented commoners and propertied Lords, ruled successfully.

Intellectual property is far more egalitarian. Of limited duration and obtainable by anyone, intellectual property can be seen as a reward, an empowering instrument, for the talented upstarts Burke sought to restrain. Intellectual property is often the propertization of what we call "talent." It tends to shift the balance toward the talented newcomers whom Burke mistrusted

In many quarters, property is viewed as an inherently conservative concept --

WHAT COUNTS AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?

The Philosophy of Intellectual Property

Res [Latin, A thing.] An object, a subject matter, or a status against which legal proceedings have been instituted. For example, in a suit involving a captured ship, the seized vessel is the res, and proceedings of this nature are said to be in rem. Res, however, does not always refer to tangible Personal Property. In matrimonial actions, for example, the res is the marital status of the parties.

res (rayz) n. Latin, thing. In law lingo res is used in conjunction with other Latin words as "thing that."

I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t H o e h l i n g h a s a v a l i d c o p y r i g h t i n h i s b o o k . T o p r o v e i n f r i n g e m e n t , h o w e v e r , h e m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t s " c o p i e d " h i s w o r k a n d t h a t t h e y " i m p r o p e r l y a p p r o p r i a t e d " h i s " e x p r e s s i o n . "

Introduction to BASIC LEGAL CITATION

Citators- A set of books and online sources that provide the subsequent judicial history and interpretation of reported cases or lists of cases and legislative enactments construing, applying, or affecting statutes. In America, the most widely used citators are Shepard's citations and Keycite.

Citation signals The citation signal appearing next to a case name indicates whether the decision has received positive, negative, cautionary or neutral treatment in subsequent judgments. The signal is a summary of the annotation information available from the list of appeal proceedings and cases referring to this case. Clicking on these signals will take you to the citation entry for these decisions. Hover your mouse over the symbol for a description.

What rationale is important to include in a brief? This is probably the most difficult aspect of the case to determine. Remember that everything that is discussed may have been relevant to the judge, but it is not necessarily relevant to the rationale of the decision. The goal is to remind yourself of the basic reasoning that the court used to come to its decision and the key factors that made the decision favor one side or the other.

Why highlight? Like annotating, highlighting may seem unimportant if you create thorough, well-constructed briefs, but highlighting directly helps you to brief. It makes cases, especially the more complicated ones, easy to digest, review and use to extract information. Highlighting takes advantage of colors to provide a uniquely effective method for reviewing and referencing a case. If you prefer a visual approach to learning, you may find highlighting to be a very effective tool.

Pencil or pen — which is better to use when annotating? Our recommendation is a mechanical pencil.

In addition to making it easier to review an original case, annotating cases during the first review of a case makes the briefing process easier. With adequate annotations, the important details needed for your brief will be much easier to retrieve. Without annotations, you will likely have difficulty locating the information you seek even in the short cases. It might seem strange that it would be hard to reference a short case, but even a short case will likely take you at least fifteen to twenty-five minutes to read, while longer cases may take as much as thirty minutes to an hour to complete. No matter how long it takes, the dense material of all cases makes it difficult to remember all your thoughts, and trying to locate specific sections of the analysis may feel like you are trying to locate a needle in a haystack. An annotation in the margin, however, will not only swiftly guide you to a pertinent section, but will also refresh the thoughts that you had while reading that section.

As far as I know, the major concerns of Zotero are: Storing and searching items in a library Assigning user-supplied metadata to these items Exporting the metada in some common bibliogaphic formats Additional, it appears Zotero allows to store notes. So what's the relationship to h? To the extent notes in Zotero can accommodate the richness of an annotation, it could be a storage backend for h. Notes are page-level annotations, at least. We could allow Zotero users with existing libraries to import their notes as annotations.

Open Source[edit] LightSide[43] EASE[44] - Published by EdX.

Finally, with the current technology, some types of writing are probably outside the reach of MOOCs. There is no literature to suggest that either AES or CPR can accurately assess figurative or creative pieces, or original research pieces. Some type of peer review software that relies heavily on the students being closer to experts in their own right might bring these types of writing into larger courses; but, not every undergraduate course that uses writing as a form of assessment will translate to the MOOC format.

Comparing AES to CPR Both AES and CPR have advantages and disadvantages in the context of MOOCs. Figure 1 offers a comparison of generalized AES methods of assessment and CPR

Calibrated Peer Review™, Version 5 UCLA’s CPR is a stand-alone, web-based application that both manages the workflow for their specific peer review process and scores how well peer reviewers perform (see http:// cpr.molsci.ucla.edu). CPR allows large numbers of students to: • turn in essays, • learn what the instructor believes are the critical points in those essays by scor - ing instructor-provided essays with a multiple choice rubric, • perform peer review of their fellow students’ work, • perform a self-evaluation of their own work, and • receive all the feedback from their peers who reviewed their work.

Alternatively, Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng who are the founders of Coursera, a Stanford MOOC startup, have decided to use peer evaluation to assess writing. Koller and Ng (2012) specifically used the term “calibrated peer review” to refer to a method of peer review distinct from an application developed by UCLA with National Science Foundation funding called Calibrated Peer Review™ (CPR). For Koller and Ng, “calibrated peer review” is a specific form of peer review in which students are trained on a particular scoring rubric for an assignment using practice essays before they begin the peer review process.

From:

A COMPENDIUM OF CLEV ER AND AMUSING LAW REVIEW WRITINGS

Legal Writing for the Courts: An Annotated Bibliography

Dissent 1: Rehnquist (joined by White): A. "Liberty" not found in the Bill of Rights is not absolutely protected because RULE: the correct test for social and economic regulation is whether the law has "rational relation to a valid state objective." B. The majority ignores that rule. The trimester scheme is "judicial legislation" and historical legal prohibitions show abortion is "not so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental" because the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend to limit the states' ability to regulate abortion. Dissent 2: White: A. There is "Nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment," so the majority’s decision must be a "raw exercise of judicial power" that is "improvident and extravagant." B. The decision whether to allow abortions or not should be left to the people of the states and their legislatures—in other words, the political process.

Concurrence 1: (Stewart): a right to abortion comes ONLY from 14th Am. "liberty," not "penumbra" of Bill of Rights. Concurrence 2: (Burger): there is a right to an abortion, but the court should give more leeway to medical safeguards. Concurrence 3: (Douglas): there is a right to abortion, but this comes from a BROAD right of privacy.

Majority Reasoning: (Justice Blackmun) A. Rule: The State of Texas asserts it’s rule (a law banning all abortions) is furthered by 2 interests: (1) Protecting prenatal life and (2) the medical safety of woman. The court accepts these interests, but rejects Texas’s absolute rule because: 1. There are 2 counter-weighing interests of the woman: a. The woman has a privacy right grounded in a "penumbra" of Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, because "activities relating to marriage, procreation, family relationships, and child rearing and education" are "fundamental" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." b. The woman also has an interest in avoiding possible severe physical and psychological harm if an abortion is denied. 2. Also, a fetus is not a "person" within the meaning of the constitution, so it doesn’t get protection as a person. 3. Therefore, a proper rule balances the interests of the state v. the interests of the woman: in the early stages of pregnancy, the woman has stronger interests than the state, but as a fetus becomes more advanced, the state interests in prenatal life and a woman’s health grow to be "compelling," thus overriding the woman’s interests. This results in a 3-part RULE (trimester framework) the court announces: a. first trimester of pregnancy: no/little state interest in regulating abortion, so most abortion regulations are invalid. b. second trimester: moderate state interest (medical health of woman) so most medical regulations are okay. c. third trimester: Compelling state interest (fetal viability) so can outlaw abortion except to save woman’s life. B. Application: Here (in this case) Texas’s law violates this framework, because it outlaws abortions not just in the third trimester, but also in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.

(Vote: 7-2) Yes: The statute is unconstitutional because the constitution contains a right to an abortion.

Does the Texas statute violate a constitutional right to have an abortion?

A woman was denied an abortion by a doctor afraid to violate a Texas criminal statute prohibiting abortions except "for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." The Federal District Court ruled the statute unconstitutional; there was a direct appeal by Texas to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Sample Model Case Brief (Should be ONE page (Typed) MAXIMUM!):

Sample Model Case Brief (Should be ONE page (Typed) MAXIMUM!):

How To Write a Case Brief

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: You don’t need to spend too much time on this part other than the pinpoint the concurring or dissenting judge’s main point of contention with the majority opinion and rationale. Concurring and dissenting opinions hold lots of law professor Socratic Method fodder, and you can be ready by including this part in your case brief.

Reasoning: This is the most important part of your brief as it describes why the court ruled the way it did; some law professors dwell on facts more than others, some more on procedural history, but all spend the most time on the court’s reasoning as it combines all parts of the case rolled in one, describing the application of the rule of law to the facts of the case, often citing other court’s opinions and reasoning or public policy considerations in order to answer the issue presented. This part of your brief traces the court’s reasoning step by step, so be sure that you record it without gaps in logic as well.

Rule of Law: In some cases this will be clearer than others, but basically you want to identify the principle of law on which the judge or justice is basing the resolution of the case. This is what you’ll often hear called “black letter law.”

Holding: The holding should directly respond to the question in the Issue Presented, begin with “yes” or “no,” and elaborate with “because…” from there. If the opinion says “We hold…” that’s the holding; some holdings aren’t so easy to pinpoint, though, so look for the lines in the opinion that answer your Issue Presented question.

Issue Presented: Formulate the main issue or issues in the case in the form of questions, preferably with a yes or no answer, which will help you more clearly state the holding in the next section of the case brief.

Procedural History: Record what has happened procedurally in the case up until this point. The dates of case filings, motions of summary judgment, court rulings, trials, and verdicts or judgments should be noted, but usually this isn’t an extremely important part of a case brief unless the court decision is heavily based in procedural rules—or unless you note that your professor loves to focus on procedural history.

Facts: Pinpoint the determinative facts of a case, i.e., those that make a difference in the outcome. Your goal here is to be able to tell the story of the case without missing any pertinent information but also not including too many extraneous facts either; it takes some practice to pick out the determinative facts, so don’t get discouraged if you miss the mark the first few times. Above all, make sure you have clearly marked the parties’ names and positions in the case (Plaintiff/Defendant or Appellee/Appellant).

Concurri ng and/or Diss enting Opinio ns. Concurring and dissenting opinions (a.k.a. “concu rrence s” and “dissents”) are opinions by judges w ho did not se e entire ly e ye -to-ey e with the other judges of the court, and wish to express a slightly or even dramatically diff erent view of the case. In g en er al , a co nc ur ri ng op in io n i s a n o pi ni on by a judge who would have reached the same result as the majority, but f or a different reason. Dissenting opinions are opinions by judges who disagree with the majority’s result entirely. I n most cases, dissenting opinions try to persuade the reader that the majority ’s decision was simply incorre ct.

Disposition : The dispo sition usua lly a ppears a t t he en d of the ma in opinion, and tells you what action the court is taking with the case. For example, an appeals court ma y affirm the lower court decision , upholding it; or it ma y reverse the decision, overturning it, and remand the case, sendi ng i t back to th e lower c ourt for further procee dings. F or now, y ou should k eep in mind that when a higher court affirms it means that the lower court had it right (in result, if not in reasoning). Words like reverse , remand , and vacate means that the higher court though the lower court had it wrong

Law of the Case

Facts of the Case

Author of t he Opinion

Case Citation

The Caption: The caption is the title of the case, such as Brown v. Board of Education , or Miranda v. Arizona . In most cases, the cap tio n refle cts the la st names o f the two p arties to the dispute, and it tells you who was involved in the case. If Ms . Smith sues Mr. Jones, t he case caption may be Smith v. Jones (or, depending on the court, Jones v. Smith ). In a criminal case , the government brings the case, a nd the government itself is listed as a party. I f the f ederal government charges Sam Jones with a crime, for example, the ca se capt ion would be United States v. Jones .

Ho w to R ead a Judicia l Opin ion: A G uid e for N ew L aw Stu den ts Professor Orin S. Kerr George Washington University Law School Washington, DC Version 2.0 (August 2005) This essay is desig ned to help entering law students understand ho w to read cas es for class. It explains what judicial opinions are, how they are structured, and what you should look for when you read them. Part I explains the various ingredients found in a typical judicial opinion, and is the most essential section of the essay . Par t II discusses what you should look for when you re ad an opinion for class. Part II I con clu des with a brief discussion of why law schools use the case method.

The cases on the subject are collected in a footnote to Somerset Bank v. Edmund, 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 726; 76 Ohio St. Rep. 396, the head-note to which reads: "Public policy and sound morals alike forbid that a public officer should demand or receive for services performed by him in the discharge of official duty any other or further remuneration or reward than that prescribed or allowed by law." This rule of public policy has been relaxed only in those instances where the legislature for sufficient public reason has seen fit by statute to extend the stimulus of a reward to the public without distinction, as in the case of United States v. Matthews, 173 U.S. 381, where the attorney-general, under an act for "the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States," made a public offer of reward sufficiently liberal and generic to comprehend the services of a federal deputy marshal. Exceptions of that character upon familiar principles serve to emphasize the correctness of the rule, as one based upon sound public policy.

MINTURN, J. The plaintiff occupied the position of a special police officer, in Atlantic City, and incidentally was identified with the work of the prosecutor of the pleas of the county. He possessed knowledge concerning the theft of certain diamonds and jewelry from the possession of the defendant, who had advertised a reward for the recovery of the property. In this situation he claims to have entered into a verbal contract with defendant, whereby she agreed to pay him $500 if he could procure for her the names and addresses of the thieves. As a result of his meditation with the police authorities the diamonds and jewelry were recovered, and plaintiff brought this suit to recover the promised reward.

The judgment below for that reason must be reversed.

The testimony makes it manifest that he was a special police officer to some extent identified with the work of the prosecutor's office, and that position, upon well-settled grounds of public policy, required him to assist, at least, in the prosecution of offenders against the law. The services he rendered, in this instance, must be presumed to have been rendered in pursuance of that public duty, and for its performance he was not entitled to receive a special quid pro quo.

The District Court, sitting without a jury, awarded plaintiff a judgment for the amount of the reward, and hence this appeal.

Various points are discussed in the briefs, but to us the dominant and conspicuous inquiry in the case is, was the plaintiff, during the period of this transaction, a public officer, charged with the enforcement of the law?

STEPHEN GRAY, RESPONDENT, v. THERESA D. MARTINO, APPELLANT Supreme Court of New Jersey 91 N.J.L. 462; 103 A. 24 February 2, 1918, Decided

Dicta Dicta refers to anything that isn't relevant to the case's holding. Often judges will use a case to expound upon their theories of the law. The theories may not be relevant to the case at hand, but it gives the judge a chance to give direction to the lower courts by putting the theory in writing. Dicta does not carry weight as a precedent. But it's useful to note how the court might have ruled given a different set of circumstances.