There is nothing really backing this one up. The Permian extinction could have just as easily been a glaciation on Gondwana. My personal vote would be that the Permian and Ordovician extinctions were the result of some earth-based forcing of the environment. But most importantly, this new information is just a hypothesis, nothing more. Lets not try to give it more weight than it deserves.
Actually that argument would work because your cop didn't go and get a warrant before entering the house. You need PC (probable cause) to get the warrant, but you can't enter the building just because you have probable cause unless there is an exigency (and there wouldn't be in this case). So in sum, you're not seeing it correctly.
Here is how it is: the ip address gives you PC to get the warrant. You must get the warrant before searching the house. Without more evidence the guy wouldn't be convicted, but since this guy had the DVDs he was convicted, and the conviction was correctly upheld.
What exactly is the "suspicious" noise? If it is guns shots or someone breaking into your house then it would be an emergency call where the police would be allowed to run red lights. If it is just you being scared because you're home alone, then no they shouldn't be running red lights and risking the lives of the other drivers on the road.
If I have to choose between your 99% false alarm call and the lives of the other people crossing that intersection when the officer runs the red light, I choose the lives of the other people. Or how about this, if the call turns out to be a false alarm then you get to pay the officer's ticket?
Who's to say that the US' laws trump Japan's laws, or which is "better?" I'd say the people in those two countries, and no one else. That's an easy question. US laws trump Japanese laws in the US, and that's all that matters. YouTube is a US company and the servers that are hosting the video are located in the US. So if Japan wants the video taken down it would have to come to the US and figure out a way to pay off the Supreme Court in order to overcome the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Applicants have a duty to disclose to the USPTO relevant prior art of which they are aware. However, applicants are not required to search for prior art. Under the USPTO's accelerated examination procedure, applicants are required to conduct a search of the prior art, to submit all prior art that is closest to their invention, and explain what the prior art teaches and how their invention is different.
In addition to providing and explaining any prior art references, applicants must explicitly state how their invention is useful and must show how the written description supports the claimed invention. It looks to me as a way for big business to get patents quicker. This process is practically no different than what use to happen. You always did a prior art search before filing for a patent because you didn't want to waste the money on a patent that will be denied. You even listed the prior art in the patent application. The only thing that appears to be changing is that the patent examiners aren't going to being doing their own search for prior art. This "improvement" looks like it will lowering the quailty of patents at a time when most patents being issued are already suspect.
This is not a criminal case, it is a civil case. In civil cases you have to turn over everything they ask for and everything you expect to use in the case. They were going to ask for the hard disk, so the lawyer did the correct thing and secured it right away.
News flash, Bush's wiretapping program was illegal/unconstitutional but that didn't stop him or anyone in the government from doing it. What makes you think Puerto Rico is any different?
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing really backing this one up. The Permian extinction could have just as easily been a glaciation on Gondwana. My personal vote would be that the Permian and Ordovician extinctions were the result of some earth-based forcing of the environment. But most importantly, this new information is just a hypothesis, nothing more. Lets not try to give it more weight than it deserves.
Actually that argument would work because your cop didn't go and get a warrant before entering the house. You need PC (probable cause) to get the warrant, but you can't enter the building just because you have probable cause unless there is an exigency (and there wouldn't be in this case). So in sum, you're not seeing it correctly. Here is how it is: the ip address gives you PC to get the warrant. You must get the warrant before searching the house. Without more evidence the guy wouldn't be convicted, but since this guy had the DVDs he was convicted, and the conviction was correctly upheld.
What exactly is the "suspicious" noise? If it is guns shots or someone breaking into your house then it would be an emergency call where the police would be allowed to run red lights. If it is just you being scared because you're home alone, then no they shouldn't be running red lights and risking the lives of the other drivers on the road.
If I have to choose between your 99% false alarm call and the lives of the other people crossing that intersection when the officer runs the red light, I choose the lives of the other people. Or how about this, if the call turns out to be a false alarm then you get to pay the officer's ticket?
This is not a criminal case, it is a civil case. In civil cases you have to turn over everything they ask for and everything you expect to use in the case. They were going to ask for the hard disk, so the lawyer did the correct thing and secured it right away.
News flash, Bush's wiretapping program was illegal/unconstitutional but that didn't stop him or anyone in the government from doing it. What makes you think Puerto Rico is any different?
Who was stupid enough to admit to that over a phone survey where they have your name, address, and phone number?