If you live in California, you know full well how she continues to get elected: California voters are idiots who do what they're told by the talking box in their living room.
That's not the law in North Carolina. Very explicitly not the law. If you had a dick when you were born, use the men's toilet, even if you don't any more. If you had a vagina when you were born, use the women's toilet, even if you have a dick now.
A religious belief. Which has been illegal for 50 years. Period. Been to the Supreme Court, upheld ever time. It is 100% the issue. Enacting religious prejudice as law.
I just don't understand how a man born a man or a woman born a woman thinks they have a right to use the bathroom of the person they "think" they are, when one's plumbing defines the correct bathroom.
Well, now, son, that's where you went astray. This law doesn't require people to use a bathroom that matches their plumbing, it requires them to use a bathroom that matches the plumbing their birth certificate indicates, even if their own plumbing has been changed. Given the skill of the surgeons and other doctors who do gender realignment procedures, this law requires individuals who literally look like Playboy centerfolds to use the men's room. And men who look like professional body builders to use the women's bathroom.
If that makes sense to you, then, please, move to North Carolina. And stay there.
The difference is that in this case, the people making the decision aren't the ones implementing it. They aren't asking, they're forcing. A business that decides to make people use the bathroom they (the business) believe is appropriate is a qualitatively different situation from the business being told by people with guns and badges which bathroom is appropriate, regardless of what the business, or their customers, might think.
Because real privacy stalls cost more than simple dividers. On the other hand, in France, they have urinals mounted to the outsides of buildings on public streets, with any privacy screens at all.
It's legal to discriminate against anyone not part of a protected class, such as race, religion, political creed, etc. (Never mind this is explicitly intended to discriminate on the basis of religion, which has been illegal for over 50 years).
You can, for instance, discriminate against someone for wearing blue socks, and it's perfectly legal. So long as those socks aren't a religious requirement.
And end with the childbirth video, followed by bible school for the young child, explaining that he'll burn in hell if he ever touches a boobie he's not married to.
While ignoring that this same law requires someone who was born a woman, then became a man surgically, complete with hormone treatments to build muscle mass and male aggression to use the women's bathroom.
Rounding to the nearest degree can result in an error of very nearly 100 statute miles (157 km). You can round to things other than the nearest whole degree, of course.
Indeed, you can. If you read TFA, however, you will find that in this case they did not. They rounded to the nearest whole degree in both directions.
And even a second of latitude us enough to put you off by two or more street numbers in most urban areas.
Rounding in a GPS location can move the address by 30+ miles. So, while rounding is done all the time, doing so in this case would be dangerously irresponsible.
I got a death threat in a Y2K newsgroup once. After I told him my roommates got into an argument about it - about which one of them got to shoot him if he showed up and I wasn't there - he stopped posting.
This isn't a change. It's always been the case that if you share pictures of yourself drunk, mostly naked, and swinging from the chandelier at the strip club with your coworkers, you'd likely get fired.
The internet is a public place. Share something, and it's shared. Get over it.
The only notable aspect to this is that people are now whining about people doing what people whined they should do:
"You shouldn't share personal information on Facebook! That's a bad idea!"
"OK, I'll stop."
"OH MY GOD!!! YOU'RE NOT SHARING PERSONAL INFORMATION ON FACEBOOK!!! IT'S THE END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION!!! DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER!!!"
I expect trademark law is a better basis. It's easier to violate trademarks, and they can retreat behind the requirement that trademarks be defended or you lose them (unlike copyrights).
But terms of service are, indeed, a contract, and enforceable under the law.
The DCMA gave hosting services such as youtube immunity from prosecution provided they had a take down process.
Which has been relentlessly abused by big media companies with automated systems that routinely misidentify content that isn't theirs to send takedown notices for. Without consequence.
The content owners, be they artist or record company, can no longer sue for damages.
They don't need to, if they can have anything taken down, any time, via an automated system, with no fear of consequences even if they commit perjury doing so (the DMCA takedown notices are sent under penalty of perjury, after all, though despite the, literally, tens or hundreds of thousands of bogus notices, not a single prosecution has taken place).
The losers were litigious content owners and their lawyers.
The losers are the artists whose talent created the content in the first place, who were screwed out of the pittance they were promised to begin with, and who regularly have their independent offerings taken down with bogus - perjurious - DMCA takedown notices from huge media companies.
Which is to say, it's a day that ends in "y." Business as usual.
"The tech companies who benefit from the DMCA today were not the intended protectorate when it was signed into law two decades ago."
Neither are the artists. It was intended to protect the recording industry, and specifically (among other intents) to protect their ability to rob the artists blind at every opportunity.
If it gets updated, it will be to expand the protections of the industry, at the expense of the artists, same as before.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you're not familiar with Diane Feinstein's legislative record?
If you live in California, you know full well how she continues to get elected: California voters are idiots who do what they're told by the talking box in their living room.
A man with a wife at home stays at home. A man with a maid likes to go out and have some fun on the weekends.
If you have a dick, use the men's toilet.
That's not the law in North Carolina. Very explicitly not the law. If you had a dick when you were born, use the men's toilet, even if you don't any more. If you had a vagina when you were born, use the women's toilet, even if you have a dick now.
Try to pay attention.
A religious belief. Which has been illegal for 50 years. Period. Been to the Supreme Court, upheld ever time. It is 100% the issue. Enacting religious prejudice as law.
You didn't even look at the links, obviously. Not surprising.
I just don't understand how a man born a man or a woman born a woman thinks they have a right to use the bathroom of the person they "think" they are, when one's plumbing defines the correct bathroom.
Well, now, son, that's where you went astray. This law doesn't require people to use a bathroom that matches their plumbing, it requires them to use a bathroom that matches the plumbing their birth certificate indicates, even if their own plumbing has been changed. Given the skill of the surgeons and other doctors who do gender realignment procedures, this law requires individuals who literally look like Playboy centerfolds to use the men's room. And men who look like professional body builders to use the women's bathroom.
If that makes sense to you, then, please, move to North Carolina. And stay there.
The difference is that in this case, the people making the decision aren't the ones implementing it. They aren't asking, they're forcing. A business that decides to make people use the bathroom they (the business) believe is appropriate is a qualitatively different situation from the business being told by people with guns and badges which bathroom is appropriate, regardless of what the business, or their customers, might think.
Because real privacy stalls cost more than simple dividers. On the other hand, in France, they have urinals mounted to the outsides of buildings on public streets, with any privacy screens at all.
It's legal to discriminate against anyone not part of a protected class, such as race, religion, political creed, etc. (Never mind this is explicitly intended to discriminate on the basis of religion, which has been illegal for over 50 years).
You can, for instance, discriminate against someone for wearing blue socks, and it's perfectly legal. So long as those socks aren't a religious requirement.
Hasn't nearly the enitre porn industry been built on exploitive practices?
Yes, but they'll cheerfully exploit everybody, including the goat.
And end with the childbirth video, followed by bible school for the young child, explaining that he'll burn in hell if he ever touches a boobie he's not married to.
There is no true purpose to these sorts of law. They are random turds from people with diarrhea, dribbling down their pantlegs are random times.
While ignoring that this same law requires someone who was born a woman, then became a man surgically, complete with hormone treatments to build muscle mass and male aggression to use the women's bathroom.
Rounding to the nearest degree can result in an error of very nearly 100 statute miles (157 km). You can round to things other than the nearest whole degree, of course.
Indeed, you can. If you read TFA, however, you will find that in this case they did not. They rounded to the nearest whole degree in both directions.
And even a second of latitude us enough to put you off by two or more street numbers in most urban areas.
Dangerously irresponsible.
Rounding in a GPS location can move the address by 30+ miles. So, while rounding is done all the time, doing so in this case would be dangerously irresponsible.
I got a death threat in a Y2K newsgroup once. After I told him my roommates got into an argument about it - about which one of them got to shoot him if he showed up and I wasn't there - he stopped posting.
Unfortunately, those real issues get hijacked by passive/aggressive whiners.
There's more than one side responsible for the real issues being ignored.
Now you know why so many people are full of it. It's a good day when you learn something new.
Case law says otherwise.
This isn't a change. It's always been the case that if you share pictures of yourself drunk, mostly naked, and swinging from the chandelier at the strip club with your coworkers, you'd likely get fired.
The internet is a public place. Share something, and it's shared. Get over it.
The only notable aspect to this is that people are now whining about people doing what people whined they should do:
"You shouldn't share personal information on Facebook! That's a bad idea!"
"OK, I'll stop."
"OH MY GOD!!! YOU'RE NOT SHARING PERSONAL INFORMATION ON FACEBOOK!!! IT'S THE END OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION!!! DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER!!!"
Yawn.
Settings qualify for copyright, too, as do characters under some circumstances.
I expect trademark law is a better basis. It's easier to violate trademarks, and they can retreat behind the requirement that trademarks be defended or you lose them (unlike copyrights).
But terms of service are, indeed, a contract, and enforceable under the law.
The DCMA gave hosting services such as youtube immunity from prosecution provided they had a take down process.
Which has been relentlessly abused by big media companies with automated systems that routinely misidentify content that isn't theirs to send takedown notices for. Without consequence.
The content owners, be they artist or record company, can no longer sue for damages.
They don't need to, if they can have anything taken down, any time, via an automated system, with no fear of consequences even if they commit perjury doing so (the DMCA takedown notices are sent under penalty of perjury, after all, though despite the, literally, tens or hundreds of thousands of bogus notices, not a single prosecution has taken place).
The losers were litigious content owners and their lawyers.
The losers are the artists whose talent created the content in the first place, who were screwed out of the pittance they were promised to begin with, and who regularly have their independent offerings taken down with bogus - perjurious - DMCA takedown notices from huge media companies.
Which is to say, it's a day that ends in "y." Business as usual.
"The tech companies who benefit from the DMCA today were not the intended protectorate when it was signed into law two decades ago."
Neither are the artists. It was intended to protect the recording industry, and specifically (among other intents) to protect their ability to rob the artists blind at every opportunity.
If it gets updated, it will be to expand the protections of the industry, at the expense of the artists, same as before.