Another round concerning the neverending fuss about the relationship between violence and video games that some people are trying hard to establish, without much success so far, was fought on the screens in the  United States, with an old man going on television complaining about video games and then being proved horribly wrong by a reporter....

Over at Catallarchy, Micha Ghertner discusses “How To Tell You’ve Won An Argument;” namely, when your opponent concedes that his position is less coherent than your own, you’ve won. Now, I don’t want to dispute his point, but rather to question how relevant it is. I’ve touched on this before, but I’m a bit dubious of the notion that the “correct” position is the one that wins arguments between advocates of two different positions.

Obviously, in the first place, there’s nothing to prevent both arguers from being wrong; the relative lack of coherence of one of their positions means, at best, that the other’s position is “less” wrong (assuming that even makes sense and assuming that coherence is a measure of correctness).¹ But this is somewhat superficial (and besides, already mentioned and acknowledged in the comments to Ghertner’s post); more importantly, I want to cast doubts upon the parenthetical assumption I made above, that coherence is some sort of infallible metric for measuring correctness/validity.

In fact, Ghertner (perhaps unconsciously) alludes to this very issue when he quotes Wittgenstein’s famous seventh proposition from the Tractatus: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Within the context of the Tractatus (as an attempt to construct or at least describe a perfect language), this supports the notion that being right and being coherent are synonymous, but Wittgenstein himself later rejects this perspective and, to me, the more apropos quotation is: “Explanations come to an end somewhere” (Philosophical Investigations, I§1). That is, no argument (and certainly none about abstract principles) is completely coherent; we always run up against that whereof we cannot speak and therefore must be silent. The question is simply at what stage in the investigation we enter the realm of unsupported assertion.

And even if we scale back our expectations and choose to embrace the position that manages to maintain coherence as far back as possible, there’s still no guarantee that we’re on the right track. Although much of the world can apparently be explained without the need to stipulate a deity, this doesn’t really make it any less likely that theism is right. In the words of Chuck Klosterman:

Math [or, perhaps more fittingly in this context, logic] is the antireligion, because it splinters the gravity of life’s only imperative equation: Either something is true, or it isn’t.

In fact, if we really want to get all Wittgensteinian about this (not that we necessarily should), we might even begin to question those positions which do appear to be coherent:

In the actual use of expressions we make detours, we go by side roads. We see the straight highway before us, but of course we cannot use it, because it is permanently closed. (PI, I§426)

Anyway, getting back to whatever semblance of a point I was trying to make, when someone admits that their position is incoherent, that does indeed mean that they’ve lost the argument, but I just wonder how important that really is. Giving up your high-paying job and live-in girlfriend to go back home and take care of your sick mother isn’t going to win a lot of arguments if we’re taking logical coherence as the criterion of victory (seriously, think about it), but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do. That doesn’t mean that coherence is totally irrelevant to what is right/correct, either (and, I should point out, in the above example helping your sick mom isn’t necessarily the right thing to do; as is almost always true, it depends on the circumstances), but let’s not give argument-winning more importance than it merits. Or, as some smarmy new-age intellectual might put it, in the pursuit of knowledge, our goal shouldn’t be to win arguments, but, rather, to discover truth.

The law of the excluded middle says here: It must either look like this, or like that. So it really—and this is a truism—says nothing at all, but gives us a picture. And the problem ought now to be: does reality accord with the picture or not? And this picture seems to determine what we have to do, what to look for, and how—but it does not do so, just because we do not know how it is to be applied. Here saying “There is no third possibility” or “But there can’t be a third possibility!”—expresses our inability to turn our eyes away from this picture: a picture which looks as if it must already contain both the problem and its solution, while all the time we feel that it is not so. (PI I§352)

Fr. Stephen shares two stories from the lives of the desert fathers and offers reflections. The grace of God given to us in forgiveness and the Spirit of peace involve the healing of the soul.

On the Sunday of the Holy Fathers we hear St. Paul teaching his spiritual son, St. Titus, how to live the faith instead of being distracted by troublemakers!

Fr. Pat reflects on the story of the man born blind.

Aim/Purpose: The rise of modern artificial intelligence (AI), in particular, machine learning (ML), has provided new opportunities and directions for knowledge management (KM). A central question for the future of KM is whether it will be dominated by an automation strategy that replaces knowledge work or whether it will support a knowledge-enablement strategy that enhances knowledge work and uplifts knowledge workers. This paper addresses this question by re-examining and updating a critical argument against KM by the sociologist of science Steve Fuller (2002), who held that KM was extractive and exploitative from its origins. Background: This paper re-examines Fuller’s argument in light of current developments in artificial intelligence and knowledge management technologies. It reviews Fuller’s arguments in its original context wherein expert systems and knowledge engineering were influential paradigms in KM, and it then considers how the arguments put forward are given new life in light of current developments in AI and efforts to incorporate AI in the KM technical stack. The paper shows that conceptions of tacit knowledge play a key role in answering the question of whether an automating or enabling strategy will dominate. It shows that a better understanding of tacit knowledge, as reflected in more recent literature, supports an enabling vision. Methodology: The paper uses a conceptual analysis methodology grounded in epistemology and knowledge studies. It reviews a set of historically important works in the field of knowledge management and identifies and analyzes their core concepts and conceptual structure. Contribution: The paper shows that KM has had a faulty conception of tacit knowledge from its origins and that this conception lends credibility to an extractive vision supportive of replacement automation strategies. The paper then shows that recent scholarship on tacit knowledge and related forms of reasoning, in particular, abduction, provide a more theoretically robust conception of tacit knowledge that supports the centrality of human knowledge and knowledge workers against replacement automation strategies. The paper provides new insights into tacit knowledge and human reasoning vis-à-vis knowledge work. It lays the foundation for KM as a field with an independent, ethically defensible approach to technology-based business strategies that can leverage AI without becoming a merely supporting field for AI. Findings: Fuller’s argument is forceful when updated with examples from current AI technologies such as deep learning (DL) (e.g., image recognition algorithms) and large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT. Fuller’s view that KM presupposed a specific epistemology in which knowledge can be extracted into embodied (computerized) but disembedded (decontextualized) information applies to current forms of AI, such as machine learning, as much as it does to expert systems. Fuller’s concept of expertise is narrower than necessary for the context of KM but can be expanded to other forms of knowledge work. His account of the social dynamics of expertise as professionalism can be expanded as well and fits more plausibly in corporate contexts. The concept of tacit knowledge that has dominated the KM literature from its origins is overly simplistic and outdated. As such, it supports an extractive view of KM. More recent scholarship on tacit knowledge shows it is a complex and variegated concept. In particular, current work on tacit knowledge is developing a more theoretically robust and detailed conception of human knowledge that shows its centrality in organizations as a driver of innovation and higher-order thinking. These new understandings of tacit knowledge support a non-extractive, human enabling view of KM in relation to AI. Recommendations for Practitioners: Practitioners can use the findings of the paper to consider ways to implement KM technologies in ways that do not neglect the importance of tacit knowledge in automation projects (which neglect often leads to failure). They should also consider how to enhance and fully leverage tacit knowledge through AI technologies and augment human knowledge. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers can use these findings as a conceptual framework in research concerning the impact of AI on knowledge work. In particular, the distinction between replacement and enabling technologies, and the analysis of tacit knowledge as a structural concept, can be used to categorize and analyze AI technologies relative to KM research objectives. Impact on Society: The potential of AI on employment in the knowledge economy is a major issue in the ethics of AI literature and is widely recognized in the popular press as one of the pressing societal risks created by AI and specific types such as generative AI. This paper shows that KM, as a field of research and practice, does not need to and should not add to the risks created by automation-replacement strategies. Rather, KM has the conceptual resources to pursue a (human) knowledge enablement approach that can stand as a viable alternative to the automation-replacement vision. Future Research: The findings of the paper suggest a number of research trajectories. They include: Further study of tacit knowledge and its underlying cognitive mechanisms and structures in relation to knowledge work and KM objectives. Research into different types of knowledge work and knowledge processes and the role that tacit and explicit knowledge play. Research into the relation between KM and automation in terms of KM’s history and current technical developments. Research into how AI arguments knowledge works and how KM can provide an enabling framework.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday on whether a law that legislators adopted more than a decade before the Civil War bans abortion and can still be enforced.

The joint BESAFE/BIOMOT Conference "Motivations and arguments to act for biodiversity" took place on 10 & 11 June 2015 in Brussels, Les Ateliers des Tanneurs. The main objective of the conference was to present alternative ways to inspire innovative policy making to act for nature.

Based on four years of large-scale research by the two European projects, the conference aimed to define what could really work to motivate society to act for nature. The conference involved a wide audience in high-level keynotes, science-policy interface sessions, stakeholder meetings and panels. 

The joint event was also a platform for the BESAFE project Final Conference where the beta version of the BESAFE tool was presented and tested. The tool is planned as a user-friendly application where stakeholders can browse project results and background information to help them to help them to improve biodiversity argumentation.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday on whether a law that legislators adopted more than a decade before the Civil War bans abortion and can still be enforced.

ING remarks after the wages data from Australia earlier:

• Australia data - Wage Price Index for Q3 2024: +0.8% q/q (expected +0.9%, prior +0.8%)
• Australia - "Wage inflation is moderating as expected"

ING says that year-on-year wage growth slowing to 3.5% is a step in the right direction for the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to consider rate cuts.

However, ING notes this deceleration alone isn’t enough for the RBA to rule out any upside risks to interest rates.

Despite the softer data, ING believes a case for a near-term rate cut remains weak, predicting the earliest possible easing from the RBA could come in the first quarter of 2025.

**

I suspect even Q1 is too early. The RBA next meet on December 9 - 10, where on hold is expected.

Roofing companies struggling to find the right technology to help their organization grow should use workflow maps to determine what products suit their needs, says Ryan Resides of Division 7 Roofing.

 Voy a meterme en corral ajeno... Lío entre mi querida Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, las gentes de su partido, los periodistas de la Sexta y, por extensión, los gestores de Atresmedia.

     A mí ni me va ni me viene. Por eso digo lo del corral ajeno. Ni siquiera puedo opinar acerca de si las declaraciones de Cayetana sobre la supuesta intentona de erosionar la democracia por parte de García Ferreras y su equipo para hacer negocio tiene o no tiene visos de fundamento...

Ximena Echavarría, abogada experta en derecho electoral y quien interpuso la demanda de nulidad contra el Partido En Marcha, explicó en 6AM los argumentos que la llevaron a adoptar esta decisión frente a este y otros tres partidos políticos 

En 6AM Hoy por Hoy de Caracol Radio estuvo Juan Felipe Harman, director de la Agencia Nacional de Tierras, para hablar sobre las denuncias por los presuntos trabajos de inteligencia y contrainteligencia que se estarían ejecutando desde la ANT.

Cantor’s diagonal argument claims that ℝ is uncountable. When we see real numbers as points on the number line, we can put a name on each point and put the names into a list without contravening Cantor’s diagonal argument because we cannot create a diagonal from a list of names. However, we do not need...

Whether America realized it or not, on the last day of Trump's Presidency, Trump was already making his case for his return to the Oval Office. And it was a strong case in his favor.

The post The STRONGEST Argument For Re-Electing Trump Was Published On The White House Website appeared first on Clash Daily.

Whichever candidate is sworn into office this January is the President who will be making decisions about how America and her legacy is remembered.

The post AMERICA’S BIG BIRTHDAY: An Election Argument Everyone Seems To Be Missing appeared first on Clash Daily.

Arguments Over Innovation Capacity Miss How Much the US and China Are Intertwined Expert comment sysadmin 30 May 2018

Most discussions of current US–China trade tensions fundamentally misrepresent the globalized nature of innovation.

Among the many issues at play in the ongoing economic and trade tensions between the US and China are questions of technological capability and innovation.

Two of the main complaints in the US Section 301 report were that American companies have been forced to transfer technology to China and been the subject of cyber espionage. The presentation of the issues in this report has been disputed, but behind it lies concern in the US that Chinese innovative and technological capability is catching up with that in the US, thanks partly to the support of state policies set out in the Made in China 2025 initiative.

One important feature of the package of measures announced by the US last month is that it was designed to contain China’s technological development as much as to reduce the trade deficit, even though the latter has been the focus of President Donald Trump’s rhetoric.

(Some have cast doubt on this picture of Chinese innovation, suggesting that China is more of a ‘fat tech dragon’ whose massive inputs into research and development do not translate into real innovative capacity.)

The problem with the debate comparing Chinese and American technological capability is that it misunderstands or misrepresents the globalized nature of innovation in today’s world.

Contrary to the economic nationalist rhetoric emanating mainly from Washington, and to a lesser extent from Beijing, the US and China are not two separate economies competing for economic hegemony. As part of the globalization of manufacturing and production over the last 40 years and the more recent globalization of consumption, the shape and structure of innovation has also changed.

As we argue in a new paper, the key to understanding this is to think of innovation as being carried out through global or transnational networks linking economic actors, not within separated economies. What the recent phase of globalization has demonstrated is that innovation is achieved most effectively and efficiently when those engaged in innovation are connected not just within national borders but across them.

China has become integrated into these global innovation networks in ways which reflect its relative strengths and weaknesses in research and development. China’s extensive manufacturing ecosystem has enabled its companies to perform well in production-related and efficiency-driven innovation. Moreover the rapid growth in its large and dynamic consumer market provides fertile ground for consumer-related innovation by Chinese and foreign-invested enterprises alike. The rapidly increasing talent pool in China also provides additional human capital for innovation and technology.

Apart from the increased emphasis by Chinese enterprises on innovation, multinationals have also been stepping up their research and development (R&D) efforts in China. These now consitute a significant part of China’s R&D landscape, and are an increasingly important part of the global innovation by multinationals.

Things are of course changing. China’s overall innovation capacity is improving, and there are concerns in both in the US and Europe that Chinese policy is moving backwards towards the promotion of ‘indigenous innovation’ – or self-reliant innovation – and away from openness. In other words, we may be seeing a more ‘techno-nationalist’ China as well as a protectionist US.

China has also been criticized for inadequate protection of intellectual property rights, though the establishment of special courts for such disputes marks a commitment to improve – and the rights of Chinese companies increasingly need protection too.

As the benefits of globalization increasingly come under question, and with some degree of nationalist political pressure in both the West and China, it is not going to be possible – or politically desirable – to do away with national borders when it comes to innovation. But at the same time, the extent to which businesses and consumers have globalized means that fully ‘indigenous’ innovation is not possible, even if it were politically desirable.

EU-China innovation relations, as well as those between Washington and Beijing, therefore need careful management. But both Americans and Europeans should have more confidence in their innovation capability, given the relative strengths and weaknesses of Chinese innovation.

Americans and Europeans should acknowledge and promote the opportunities that come from globally networked innovation processes. Taking advantage of the comparative advantage of all the players in these networks means working with China as an innovation partner.

The Supreme Court appeared skeptical that companies should be required to include past events in their risk disclosure statements during oral arguments for Facebook Inc. vs. Amalgamated Bank on Wednesday.

Second grade teacher Kitten Vaa shares how her students develop argumentation skills with the use of scientific modeling.

Hello,

I was looking to destructively and efficiently modify a list that was passed in as an argument to a procedure, by prepending an item to the list.

I noticed that cons lets you do this efficiently, but the operation is non-destructive. Hence this wouldn't work if you are trying to modify a function's list parameter in place.

Here is an example of trying to add "0" to the front of a list:

to write an amazing argumentative essay

to write an argumentative research paper sample

London : Macmillan, 1980.

If you’ve spent any time developing software professionally and then you are probably used to the spirited debates that take place between software engineers as well as between software engineers and management, design, and product. Software engineers are not known for being shy about their opinions on any particular subject, and especially when it comes...

The police registered a case and the investigation is on

Electoral battle turned rather unsightly in public after expelled Congress leader-turned-LDF Independent candidate P. Sarin ran into his former compatriot and poll rival in Palakkad, Rahul Mamkootathil of UDF, at a wedding on Sunday

As part of a seven-judge Constitution bench, Justice Sharma, along with a majority, overruled a 1967 verdict that denied Aligarh Muslim University’s minority institution status.

New York, May 6: A 5-year-old boy stunned police officers in the US state of Utah after he was pulled over by them while driving his mother's car to California to buy a Lamborghini with USD 3 in his pocket, according

Archives, Room Use Only - TK5118.M7 C43 1853

Is it foolish to be optimistic about our environment and its future prospects? Every day, we hear dire warnings about the health of the planet […]

The post The Argument for Environmental Optimism: Opinion by Smithsonian Secretary David J. Skorton appeared first on Smithsonian Insider.

The Supreme Court; Credit: Mark Sherman/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court begins an extraordinary two weeks of oral arguments Monday. It will be the first time in history that the court has allowed live streaming of its audio, and the first time that the court is hearing arguments via telephone hookup, instead of in the flesh.

The justices are trying to simulate their normal arguments as much as possible, beginning with Chief Marshal Pamela Talkin calling the court to order with a slightly modified version of her usual "Oyez, oyez, oyez...."

After that, very little will be as usual.

Because the arguments are conducted over the phone, the justices and the lawyers cannot see one another, and listeners will all try to imagine where the justices and lawyers are sitting or standing in their homes to hear or present arguments.

While most of the lawyers will be in their homes, the government's lawyers will be making their arguments from the office of the Solicitor General, and in a bow to formality, they plan to wear their usual formal morning coat attire.

The lawyers we sampled, to a person, said they are more comfortable standing, or even standing at a lectern, as they usually do during oral arguments, even though nobody can see them. The arguments are limited to a half hour on each side. And, as usual, each side will get to make an opening argument for two minutes uninterrupted.

After that, under normal circumstances, the justices engage in rapid-fire questioning of the lawyers, interrupting counsel frequently, and even, on occasion, each other.

But starting Monday, the justices will ask questions in order of seniority, for two or three minutes each, with Chief Justice John Roberts starting off, followed by Justice Clarence Thomas — if he has any questions, which he rarely does. (If Thomas asks a question, it will be the first time he has spoken from the bench in over a year, when he broke a three-year silence, which was preceded by a whopping 10-year silence from the bench.)

Next Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who often asks the first question in oral arguments, will be at bat, and so on, ending with the court's newest appointee, Brett Kavanauagh. More questions will be permitted if there is time left at the end of the first round of questioning.

Lawyers say there will be big challenges with the new format.

"You lose the ability to read body language. That's No. 1," says Jay Sekulow, who will be representing President Trump in cases testing whether the president can be subpoenaed for his pre-presidential financial records either by Congress or by a state grand jury subpoena in a criminal case.

As Sekulow observes, oral argument is typically a "pretty intimate event when you're actually arguing in the courtroom. You see them. You can see their reactions. You see if they nod to each other. Here you're doing this literally over a telephone line. So you lose the intimacy."

Stanford Law professor Jeff Fisher, who will be arguing a religion case a week from Monday, agrees. "I just feel that not being able to see their faces and body language is going to be a real challenge. It's just a cost for how effective and useful the arguments are going to be."

The audio argument format presents another interesting twist for the court: For the first time ever, oral arguments will be available via livestream. Typically, Supreme Court arguments are followed by a narrow group of lawyers, law students and court watchers. But with millions of Americans stuck at home, and arguments carried live online and on C-Span, the justices will likely have a larger audience than usual.

Monday's case presents a trademark question — not exactly the kind of thing to rivet public attention. And it is the only case of the day. Clearly, the court is using this relatively unimportant case to see how the system is working, and whether it needs to be adjusted in any way — in short, to work out the bugs.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

It was a new day at the Supreme Court, which for the first time ever live-streamed oral arguments.; Credit: Andrew Harnik/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court made history Monday. The coronavirus lockdown forced the typically cautious court to hear arguments for the first time via telephone, and to stream the arguments live for the public to hear.

Chief Justice John Roberts was at the court as the telephone session began, one or two other justices were in their offices at the court, and the rest of the justices dialed in from home.

The first and only case heard Monday involved an arcane trademark question only a lawyer could love. Online travel search engine Booking.com is appealing a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refusal to grant a trademark to the company.

With the justices asking questions in order of seniority, the first big surprise was that Justice Clarence Thomas, who in the past has gone years without asking a question, did ask one, several in fact, when it came his turn.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number ... that's a vanity number, 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked Assistant Solicitor General Erica Ross.

Yes, replied Ross, but domain names pose a different problem than phone numbers. Ultimately, she argued "the core problem with Booking.com is that it allows [Booking.com] to monopolize booking on the internet" to the exclusion of other sites like hotelbooking.com.

Justice Stephen Breyer followed up when his turn came: "Same question as Justice Thomas ... good morning, anyway ... You can have a trademark that's an address. You can have a trademark that's a telephone number. So why can't you have a trademark that's a dot-com?"

Justice Samuel Alito noted that the court's prior decision in this area of the law was more than 100 years old, and the statute dealing with trademarks was similarly enacted decades ago.

"How can a rule that makes sense in the internet age be reconciled with the language" in these "pre-Internet era" laws? asked Alito.

Next up to her lectern from her home was lawyer Lisa Blatt. This was her 40th Supreme Court argument and despite being a veteran, she said later that she was, as usual, sick to her stomach beforehand.

But once at the lectern "it's always a rush of excitement," she said, and this time it was a special rush.

"I loved getting a question from Justice Thomas ... I would go to the phone for the foreseeable future if I could get Justice Thomas to ask questions. That was wonderful," she said.

Indeed, despite the new format Blatt and Ross seemed to have had a good time.

"Your client would not object to the registration of any trademark that simply made a slight variation in Booking.com?" asked Alito.

"There's a million booking registrations already," parried Blatt.

Alito: "Would you just answer the question."

Blatt: "They don't and have not and would not."

Not, she added, unless another company ripped off the trademark with no variation. That would be theft, she said.

So, when when the argument was over, what was her reaction?

"After I hung up, I screamed, 'That was hard!' Because you're saying enough to answer, but not too much. And you don't have any like visual feedback, so it was hard."

In the end, she said, the argument felt more like an oral exam than an oral argument.

Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, had a similar reaction. Goldstein, who has argued 43 cases before the court, said he thought the argument was probably more useful to the public than usual.

"But I bet it was less useful for the justices," he said. "Because there was less opportunity to follow up on lines of questions and less opportunity to influence someone ... so there's much less engagement in the oral argument."

Still there were no major hitches on this first day. Justice Sonia Sotomayor briefly forget to unmute her phone at one point, prompting a "Sorry, chief." Justice Breyer's voice broke up in static for a second or two. But as Goldstein observes, this was a big change for the court.

"Culturally a change, technologically a change. And it could have been a big embarrassment if it didn't go well, but it went fine," he said. "I think they're happy."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely this week, and for the first time the arguments were streamed live to the public.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live.

The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break.

Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments.

A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot

Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade.

But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and each justice, in order of seniority, has an allotted 2 minutes for questioning.

It turn out that Thomas, second in seniority, may just have been waiting his turn. Rather than passing, as had been expected, he has been Mr. Chatty Cathy, using every one of his turns at bat so far.

Thomas broke a year-long silence on Monday in a trademark case testing whether a company can trademark by adding .com to a generic term. In this case, Booking.com.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number, for example, that's a vanity number — 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked.

2. The unstoppable RBG

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in Wednesday's argument from the hospital. In pain during Tuesday's arguments, the 87-year-old underwent non-surgical treatment for a gall bladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital later that day, according to a Supreme Court press release.

But she was ferocious on Wednesday morning, calling in from her hospital room in a case testing the Trump administration's new rule expanding exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have religious or moral objections to birth control.

"The glaring feature" of the Trump administration's new rules, is that they "toss to the winds entirely Congress' instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage," she said.

3. Who flushed?

During Wednesday's second oral argument, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, a case in which the justices weighed a First Amendment challenge to a federal rule than bans most robocalls, something very unexpected happened.

Partway through lawyer Roman Martinez's argument time, a toilet flush could be distinctly heard.

Martinez seemed unperturbed and continued speaking in spite of the awkward moment.

The flush quickly picked up steam online, becoming the first truly viral moment from the court's new livestream oral arguments.

4. Hello, where are you?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the most tech-savvy of the justices, experienced a couple of technical difficulties with her mute button.

In both Monday and Tuesday arguments, the first time she was at bat, there were prolonged pauses, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to call, "Justice Sotomayor?" a few times before she hopped on with a brief, "Sorry, Chief," before launching into her questions.

By Wednesday she seemed to have gotten used to the new format, but the trouble then jumped to Thomas, who was entirely missing in action when his turn came. He ultimately went out of order Wednesday morning.

5. Running over time

Oral arguments usually run one hour almost exactly, with lawyers for each side having 30 minutes to make their case. In an attempt to stick as closely as possible to that format, the telephone rules allocate 2 minutes of questioning to each justice for each round of questioning.

Chief Justice John Roberts spent the week jumping into exchanges, cutting off both lawyers and justices in the process, to keep the proceedings on track. Even so the arguments ran longer than usual.

But in Wednesday's birth control case, oral arguments went a whopping 40 minutes longer than expected.

Justice Alito, for his part, hammered the lawyer challenging the Trump administration's new birth control rules for more than seven minutes, without interruption from the chief justice.

Referencing a decision he wrote in 2014, Alito said that "Hobby Lobby held that if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, the federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That is precisely the question here."

Christina Peck is NPR's legal affairs intern.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely this week, and for the first time the arguments were streamed live to the public.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live.

The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break.

Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments.

A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot

Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade.

But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and each justice, in order of seniority, has an allotted 2 minutes for questioning.

It turn out that Thomas, second in seniority, may just have been waiting his turn. Rather than passing, as had been expected, he has been Mr. Chatty Cathy, using every one of his turns at bat so far.

Thomas broke a year-long silence on Monday in a trademark case testing whether a company can trademark by adding .com to a generic term. In this case, Booking.com.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number, for example, that's a vanity number — 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked.

2. The unstoppable RBG

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in Wednesday's argument from the hospital. In pain during Tuesday's arguments, the 87-year-old underwent non-surgical treatment for a gall bladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital later that day, according to a Supreme Court press release.

But she was ferocious on Wednesday morning, calling in from her hospital room in a case testing the Trump administration's new rule expanding exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have religious or moral objections to birth control.

"The glaring feature" of the Trump administration's new rules, is that they "toss to the winds entirely Congress' instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage," she said.

3. Who flushed?

During Wednesday's second oral argument, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, a case in which the justices weighed a First Amendment challenge to a federal rule than bans most robocalls, something very unexpected happened.

Partway through lawyer Roman Martinez's argument time, a toilet flush could be distinctly heard.

Martinez seemed unperturbed and continued speaking in spite of the awkward moment.

The flush quickly picked up steam online, becoming the first truly viral moment from the court's new livestream oral arguments.

4. Hello, where are you?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the most tech-savvy of the justices, experienced a couple of technical difficulties with her mute button.

In both Monday and Tuesday arguments, the first time she was at bat, there were prolonged pauses, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to call, "Justice Sotomayor?" a few times before she hopped on with a brief, "Sorry, Chief," before launching into her questions.

By Wednesday she seemed to have gotten used to the new format, but the trouble then jumped to Thomas, who was entirely missing in action when his turn came. He ultimately went out of order Wednesday morning.

5. Running over time

Oral arguments usually run one hour almost exactly, with lawyers for each side having 30 minutes to make their case. In an attempt to stick as closely as possible to that format, the telephone rules allocate 2 minutes of questioning to each justice for each round of questioning.

Chief Justice John Roberts spent the week jumping into exchanges, cutting off both lawyers and justices in the process, to keep the proceedings on track. Even so the arguments ran longer than usual.

But in Wednesday's birth control case, oral arguments went a whopping 40 minutes longer than expected.

Justice Alito, for his part, hammered the lawyer challenging the Trump administration's new birth control rules for more than seven minutes, without interruption from the chief justice.

Referencing a decision he wrote in 2014, Alito said that "Hobby Lobby held that if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, the federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That is precisely the question here."

Christina Peck is NPR's legal affairs intern.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Idaho's Mike Simpson actually sounds reasonable when bringing up the debates of the past.

The United States Supreme court recently heard oral arguments in a case that will determine the Fourth Amendment of those accused of DUI.

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live. The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break. Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments. A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen. 1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade. But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and

A federal court in Bridgeport heard arguments Thursday in a lawsuit that challenges a state law designed to promote racial diversity in Connecticut’s schools.

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live. The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break. Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments. A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen. 1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade. But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live. The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break. Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments. A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen. 1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade. But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live. The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break. Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments. A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen. 1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade. But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live. The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break. Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments. A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen. 1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade. But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live. The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break. Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments. A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen. 1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade. But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Day Three of arguments by telephone with the audio available live to audiences around the world. The higher profile case of the two heard by the justices on Wednesday dealt with Trump administration rules that would allow more employers who cite a religious or moral objection to opt out […]

The prosecution in the Claremont serial killings trial withdraws its case that Bradley Edwards was so emotionally upset about the breakdown of his relationship with his wife that he murdered three young women.