Except that this 117 pages will generate just as much case law over 200 years as the First Amendment has and because it is 117 pages that case law will be even more inconsistent than that on the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution works as well as it does because it does not attempt to spell out how it applies to edge cases. It leaves that to the judgement of those who are actually involved in dealing with such cases.
And bonus -- multi-user content. If user A wants to be forgotten, but photo contains also users B and C, removing it might violate rights of other users (unless there's going to be a little digital eraser applied to the tagged face)
What right is that? The EU is talking about human rights, so stuff like copyright is trumped. That has always been the case.
The right to post information about myself that I want others to know (such as, perhaps, the fact that I was at such and such an event with you).
What gives you the right to remove from the Internet a statement that I made, even if it is about you? Maybe I made that statement intending that people would know what I thought about you ten years from now?
And, as the link you gave shows, it is unique to a fairly small subset of English speakers. I have lived my entire life within the several states listed and have never heard that usage (and this is the first time I have ever read it).
My understanding from a previous article that I read (which I cannot find at the moment) was that there was evidence that suggested that playing classical music did not so much drive away youths intent on crime as create an atmosphere where they were less comfortable committing crime. There have been several studies that show that when a city street with abandoned cars, abundant litter, buildings with broken windows and grafitti is cleaned up (abandoned cars and litter removed, windows fixed and grafitti painted over) crime is reduced along it by larger margins than any other possible action (with the possile exception of a 24/7 police presence). The earlier article I read led me to believe that studies suggested that playing classical music had a similar effect. That is, it reduced the impulse to crime among those listening to it.
I do know that studies have shown that playing classical music in a retail outlet tends to increase sales (I am sure that there are stores which target particular demographics where this would not be true). I, also, seem to recall that it reduced shoplifting, but that may have been a comment by a store security expert rather than the result of a study.
First of all, Rick Santorum said nothing in the quote that led to Dan Savage starting the SpreadingSantorum site about statutory rape. He said that the same logic that was used to strike down the anti-sodomy laws applied to laws against incest. While some cases of incest are, also, statutory rape, incest is not necessarily statutory rape. But then, you probably think it is perfectly fine if a brother and sister decide to have sex with each other as long as they are both consenting adults.
I was unaware of any law in any state in the country that said that if you are gay you may not marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everybody else. Since marriage is a union between a man and a woman, I do not see how you can have "gay marriage". That is like having a square circle.
UM, no. Dan Savage's SpreadingSantorum site is and was aimed at "this jackass" so it hasn't been around longer than him. The site was intentionally designed to malign Rick Santorum because Dan Savage did not like something that Rick Santorum said. Mainly because Rick Santorum said that he believes that if anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional than so are anti-incest and anti-bestiality laws. He is probably correct.
It was an attempt to smear Rick Santorum for saying something that Dan Savage did not like. Rick Santorum said that the logic of a Supreme Court ruling on anti-sodomy laws would equally apply to anti-bigamy laws, anti-polygamy laws, anti-incest laws and anti-bestiality laws. He was not comparing homosexuality to those things in his statement. He was correct that the logic used by the Supreme Court in that ruling leaves no room for any of those laws either.
To expand on your point, if what you are working on as a side project is not related to what your employer does, it is improbable that the clause giving them IP rights to it would stand up in court. If on the other hand it is something in exactly the same market as what you work on during the day, it is unlikely that you will be able to get out of that clause by any means (this will vary by state). If it is somewhere in between the degree to which that clause is enforceable will vary from state to state.
one wonders what the US govt actually spends its money on if it can't even get those right.
What the governments of most modern "democracies" do, those who contribute a lot of money to Democratic Party campaings. Why did the Obama Administration loan money to Solyndra when all of their estimates said that company would go bankrupt exactly when it did? Because one of Solyndra's major investors was an Obama campaing funds bundler. Why did Obama shoot down the Keystone XL pipeline? Because Warren Buffet owns the trains that currently transport the oil that would have flowed through that pipeline.
Or perhaps... it's to work out how to handle Internet piracy.
Without additional information, there's no reason to think of it any different.
Well, yes that is true. Except that we have other information, such as the history of every government that has ever been. When the government is secretive about something, historically it has been because of one of two reasons. The first reason is because of an external threat to the nation. The second reason is because it is doing/about to do something that the general populace would not like if it knew about it. Now, which of these two does this seem most likely to be?
If it isn't encrypted, I can listen in at the same time as the intended recipient of the communication, after all we are talking about the police radio.
You are correct, but both focus what they have to say on what is in that Senate bill and only mention the House bill as an example of another bill under consideration.
his destruction of an organization that had the gall to try to help poor people.
By registering them to vote without telling them and then sending someone to vote for them, because after all, they knew how they really wanted to vote. OK, that statement is hyperbole, but ACORN commttied systematic voter fraud in the entire country. And ACORN has not been destroyed, it has just changed its name and is happily continueing to collect taxpayer dollars (despite a law forbidding that) through "unaffiliated" affiliates and other shady techniques. Do a thorough study of ACORN's corporate structure and you quickly discover that it consists of a large number of interlocking shell corporations (non-profits) that theoretically are all independent, but have overlapping boards, employees and bank accounts..
Except that experience shows that your edit is not what this is about. This is about securing police communication from the general populace, not just from the criminals. Just look at the police attitude towards people filming their behavior.
Except that is not what the models had predicted. As is stated in the article, they calculated the total amount of melt based on the melt of a limited number of glaciers, which were selected based on the ease of getting to them and measuring the change in the amount of ice they contained. This same methodology is used in other parts of the world as well. The calculations of total amount of glacial ice melt world wide is based on measurements of a limited number of glaciers that are taken as being representative. In this case, when it became possible to measure the entire area, it was discovered that the glaciers that were taken as representative, were not. In how many other places will this be discovered to be the case?
You can retroactively say, "Oh well, this is the results you would expect from what we theorized." The problem is that that is not what they said before hand. It is explicitly not what they expected.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that this 117 pages will generate just as much case law over 200 years as the First Amendment has and because it is 117 pages that case law will be even more inconsistent than that on the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution works as well as it does because it does not attempt to spell out how it applies to edge cases. It leaves that to the judgement of those who are actually involved in dealing with such cases.
And bonus -- multi-user content. If user A wants to be forgotten, but photo contains also users B and C, removing it might violate rights of other users (unless there's going to be a little digital eraser applied to the tagged face) What right is that? The EU is talking about human rights, so stuff like copyright is trumped. That has always been the case.
The right to post information about myself that I want others to know (such as, perhaps, the fact that I was at such and such an event with you).
Even if someone else posted it?
Why should I be restricted by you? My right to privacy should exceed corporate "rights" to maximise future profit.
So, in order to maintain your "right to privacy", you want to infringe on my right to talk about you?
Except that this particular law allows you to censor other's speech about you.
What gives you the right to remove from the Internet a statement that I made, even if it is about you? Maybe I made that statement intending that people would know what I thought about you ten years from now?
And, as the link you gave shows, it is unique to a fairly small subset of English speakers. I have lived my entire life within the several states listed and have never heard that usage (and this is the first time I have ever read it).
My understanding from a previous article that I read (which I cannot find at the moment) was that there was evidence that suggested that playing classical music did not so much drive away youths intent on crime as create an atmosphere where they were less comfortable committing crime. There have been several studies that show that when a city street with abandoned cars, abundant litter, buildings with broken windows and grafitti is cleaned up (abandoned cars and litter removed, windows fixed and grafitti painted over) crime is reduced along it by larger margins than any other possible action (with the possile exception of a 24/7 police presence). The earlier article I read led me to believe that studies suggested that playing classical music had a similar effect. That is, it reduced the impulse to crime among those listening to it.
I do know that studies have shown that playing classical music in a retail outlet tends to increase sales (I am sure that there are stores which target particular demographics where this would not be true). I, also, seem to recall that it reduced shoplifting, but that may have been a comment by a store security expert rather than the result of a study.
First of all, Rick Santorum said nothing in the quote that led to Dan Savage starting the SpreadingSantorum site about statutory rape. He said that the same logic that was used to strike down the anti-sodomy laws applied to laws against incest. While some cases of incest are, also, statutory rape, incest is not necessarily statutory rape. But then, you probably think it is perfectly fine if a brother and sister decide to have sex with each other as long as they are both consenting adults.
I was unaware of any law in any state in the country that said that if you are gay you may not marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everybody else. Since marriage is a union between a man and a woman, I do not see how you can have "gay marriage". That is like having a square circle.
UM, no. Dan Savage's SpreadingSantorum site is and was aimed at "this jackass" so it hasn't been around longer than him. The site was intentionally designed to malign Rick Santorum because Dan Savage did not like something that Rick Santorum said. Mainly because Rick Santorum said that he believes that if anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional than so are anti-incest and anti-bestiality laws. He is probably correct.
It was an attempt to smear Rick Santorum for saying something that Dan Savage did not like. Rick Santorum said that the logic of a Supreme Court ruling on anti-sodomy laws would equally apply to anti-bigamy laws, anti-polygamy laws, anti-incest laws and anti-bestiality laws. He was not comparing homosexuality to those things in his statement. He was correct that the logic used by the Supreme Court in that ruling leaves no room for any of those laws either.
To expand on your point, if what you are working on as a side project is not related to what your employer does, it is improbable that the clause giving them IP rights to it would stand up in court. If on the other hand it is something in exactly the same market as what you work on during the day, it is unlikely that you will be able to get out of that clause by any means (this will vary by state). If it is somewhere in between the degree to which that clause is enforceable will vary from state to state.
one wonders what the US govt actually spends its money on if it can't even get those right.
What the governments of most modern "democracies" do, those who contribute a lot of money to Democratic Party campaings. Why did the Obama Administration loan money to Solyndra when all of their estimates said that company would go bankrupt exactly when it did? Because one of Solyndra's major investors was an Obama campaing funds bundler. Why did Obama shoot down the Keystone XL pipeline? Because Warren Buffet owns the trains that currently transport the oil that would have flowed through that pipeline.
Or perhaps... it's to work out how to handle Internet piracy.
Without additional information, there's no reason to think of it any different.
Well, yes that is true. Except that we have other information, such as the history of every government that has ever been. When the government is secretive about something, historically it has been because of one of two reasons. The first reason is because of an external threat to the nation. The second reason is because it is doing/about to do something that the general populace would not like if it knew about it. Now, which of these two does this seem most likely to be?
What "stream" are you talking about?
If it isn't encrypted, I can listen in at the same time as the intended recipient of the communication, after all we are talking about the police radio.
You are correct, but both focus what they have to say on what is in that Senate bill and only mention the House bill as an example of another bill under consideration.
And what makes you think that you will hear all of it the next day if no one can listen in to it live?
his destruction of an organization that had the gall to try to help poor people.
By registering them to vote without telling them and then sending someone to vote for them, because after all, they knew how they really wanted to vote.
OK, that statement is hyperbole, but ACORN commttied systematic voter fraud in the entire country. And ACORN has not been destroyed, it has just changed its name and is happily continueing to collect taxpayer dollars (despite a law forbidding that) through "unaffiliated" affiliates and other shady techniques. Do a thorough study of ACORN's corporate structure and you quickly discover that it consists of a large number of interlocking shell corporations (non-profits) that theoretically are all independent, but have overlapping boards, employees and bank accounts..
That may not work, it depends on what color the fuel is now.
My first thought on seeing the headline was, why is NASA spending money to have green fuel, who cares what color it is?
Except that experience shows that your edit is not what this is about. This is about securing police communication from the general populace, not just from the criminals. Just look at the police attitude towards people filming their behavior.
Except that is not what the models had predicted. As is stated in the article, they calculated the total amount of melt based on the melt of a limited number of glaciers, which were selected based on the ease of getting to them and measuring the change in the amount of ice they contained. This same methodology is used in other parts of the world as well. The calculations of total amount of glacial ice melt world wide is based on measurements of a limited number of glaciers that are taken as being representative. In this case, when it became possible to measure the entire area, it was discovered that the glaciers that were taken as representative, were not. In how many other places will this be discovered to be the case?
You can retroactively say, "Oh well, this is the results you would expect from what we theorized." The problem is that that is not what they said before hand. It is explicitly not what they expected.
Actually, the question is, why do the police need communications that are secured from the knowledge of the populace?