So what "assigns" a car maker the subsidy, and what mechanism "uses one up" ?
Could Eon create a second, third, and fourth Electric car company, lease some Tesla production facilities and license some Tesla IP to the additional companies, and get the subsidy for 200,000 more vehicles manufactured by each additional company?
By how much would a new car manufacturer's product, supply lines, and distribution be required to differ in order to say they are Different car companies for purpose of counting subsidies?
The real question is: Why didn't they continue the incentive by imposing a $X TAX on each delivery from any manufacturer of a Carbon-emitting vehicle the first time it is registered to be used on public roads?
This action is NOT about protecting people... China sees opportunity, because of many millions of $$$ of bets from all over the world, they can arrest these people, and seize this money, and this $$$ will go straight to the government and corrupt law enforcement officials. The people who placed these bets will not see a cent of their $$$ ever again, whether their bet wins or loses.
Then the police issue a Silver Alert to cover the entire state,
This is an example of abuse of the emergency broadcast capability. The purpose of an emergency broadcast is supposed to be to Alert everyone to a public danger that is relevant to many people in an area since it affects the public at large NOT to try and deputize the public to assist authorities in stopping an incident affecting 1 person.
The Silver Alert is essentially a non-emergency for 99% of the population, some of whom will be roused from their sleep by spurious messages they can do nothing about --- First thing is respect people's sleep and don't issue a load alarm waking them up for this: the nature of the allerts certainly don't warrant interrupting broadcasts. For the most part only people awake and outside their home or with plans to go out in public have any chance of being able to spot the person the alert is about... Cell phone messages: Maybe on opt-in basis. There should be another type of channel for these kinds of messages that is targeted as selectively or as broadly as those willing to participate would choose.
I would suggest encouraging heavy media attention. And distribute Mobile Apps that can be used to receive FYI / Public Help Wanted Alerts with detailed scheduling, prioritization, and filtering controls.
The BS alerts of various sorts are already annoying, and i'm basically ignoring them already... Bl**** Hell; during the summer there is a Severe Thunderstorm every other day; I know that, you know that -- we can hear the thunder well in advance, and by looking at the cloud formations in the sky and the Radar app it is obvious what will be going down.... more alerts are not the answer
Especially if you're going to test the system by generating alerts: first let me control HOW I receive alerts, and make them less intrusive --- If I hear part of an alert and don't want to listen to the rest, then I should be able to dismiss it.
I am sick of having Television and Radio programs disrupted --- I'm on cable, and if I so choose: what my DVR is recording should NOT be fscked up, because someone sent an EAS test while I was away. Also.... My TiVO has a defective response to even the "test" emergency alerts... It winds up LOCKING the tuner on a specific channel, that's presumably supposed to receive the alert, but it never RELEASES the tuner back to my control. Also; What the hell.... If I know very well what the emergency is, I should be able to tune my preferred news channel that generally provides BETTER more-local more up-to-date information than any EAS junk does... with no "Eas LOCK" preventing me from changing the channel on my own frickin' TV.
There should be thus: (1) No interruption of the transmission of programming; ENCODE the information and cause a "message" to be saved to the TV and/or DVR --- recordings should be unaffected; (2) Better User-Interface Design; Play the alert but provide a Popup window that allows Acknowledging/Dismissing the alert.
Whether or not FB can withhold access even if explicitly ordered to do so by the account owner depends on the law of the land,
Facebook has the right protected in their Terms of Service to shut my account off at ANY time while I am still alive, and they can delete all my data if they want -- Facebook DOES NOT have to provide me back a copy of any information that I had posted to it or that my friends had posted to me.
It would be VERY STRANGE for a court to claim that my successors have more rights than I do to force Facebook to provide access to ANYTHING on the account by name, even if I hadn't ordered for FB to Not allow my successors access upon death ---- Let alone if I had.
Especially given Facebook's Real Name and No Sharing Access to account policies.
Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die
Facebook is Not a landlord. Facebook is not a custodian with a duty to keep any of your property. Facebook is a service provider that you provided a copy of information ---- The Information may be your intellectual property, BUT Facebook is under no obligation to use their resources to distribute a copy of that information or even to store it or continue storing it; For example: Mandatory deletion after an article is 6 months old, or after an account is Inactive for 90 days, or Immediately upon death of the account holder would all be reasonable policies --- And Facebook has no obligation to deliver a free service to a successor OR permit a successor to continue free use of their services falsely pretending to be you ---- particularly since Facebook's compensation for providing the service specifically requires effective User individual-targeted advertising, and one that is not contracted to keep any property for you - Users don't even pay them for hosting -- Usually Facebook will keep everything or almost everything you post there for the life of your account, but Facebook aren't contractually obligated to anybody to retain anything - Even if you choose to rely on them keeping important information (By failing to make a local backup of your data) -- Anything anyone posts to FB can be deleted by FB from Facebook's servers at any time, and there's no agreement to the contrary.
Facebook is available to you free of charge, BUT you must commit to terms to use their services --- one of the terms is you use Only your Individual Name for your account -- Another required rule is you aren't allowed to Share or Transfer access to your account to anyone else - Facebook makes money from advertising to you based on personal data they collect about you
$200 bet for a minimum $1000 return is pretty good
For a return the complaint has to result in an investigation finding material support evidencing a substantial violation that is either large in financial impact or affects many more people than the complainant --- the $$$ is some compensation for the trouble they have suffered or payment for doing sufficient work to move the violation to the attention to the FCC - As a result, for a chance of being paid, they should require some evidence or detailed sworn statements in writing and the complainant submit to any interviews the FCC wants, otherwise you're out $200: You don't get $1000 for nothing, and if it's found that the person making the complaint apparently lied or falsified any information in the complaint form, or complained about an incident that did not happen, they can potentially be fined and imprisoned for 5 years for Making False Statements.
whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
Would all created US documents used by an illegal migrant link back to a document in CA?
All the states want their tax money and to ensure drivers are properly insured and licensed -- so unless the vehicle was stolen then whoever's driving it had to REGISTER it: which requires providing some identifying paperwork including an address.
In short.... the license plate links through official databases to a bunch of info.
A decent chunk of people couldn't throw $200+ toward a complaint even if it would definitely result in action.
Yeah... it shouldn't cost a net $200 to complain.... Or if it does cost $200; the FCC should pay a BOUNTY to citizens raising a complaint unless it is investigated and found to not have merit. For example: Pay $200 to complain, and if investigation shows the complaint is valid, then the company should be fined or required to pay a settlement plus the investigative, administrative and FCC legal costs, and the complainer(s) that resulted in that investigation receive a payment of 2% of the resulting fine or settlement, but no less than $1000 for a founded complaint.
No, because ICE have not specially commissioned the malls to run a surveillance operation ---- the malls already run surveillance systems, likely including the plate recognition feature - for their own internal security purposes, and the data is not related to a business transaction with a customer.
If the data is available for sale to the public, then ICE can purchase access
Law Enforcement has at least the same ability as private companies and private individuals to contract with a mall for access to databases made from their surveillance footage.
If this were an online activity, it would be blatantly illegal under the GDPR
Basic response from any US company to the GPDR folks
Both ICE and malls in California do their business in the US; all the business transactions with these customers whose data is processed occur in the US. GDPR is European law, and companies' activities within US jurisdiction are not subject to European law --- even if the customer were a European national allowed to drive in the US.
And they wonder why some of us prefer to shop online.
What makes you think the Delivery truck or person/drone walking up your driveway isn't equipped with a camera equipped with GPS, and/or footage won't be submitted to license plate recognition software, and shared with any Law Enforcement agency willing to pay for access to the shared database of License Plate/GPS locations?
Shoot... if ICE is willing to pay enough revenue for license plate data, they could probably convince Meter readers working for the Gas and Power companies to don a camera for a little extra $$$ on the side.
No... Unless the debt is jointly in both married person's name: the deceased's estate will be liable for it, if the claim against the estate is made within the time limit ---- the surviving spouse is under no obligation to assume the debt.
Key assets like Real-Estate are likely to have been titled into a trust, so unless the debt is a mortgage or other secured debt: by the time the deceased's estate is settled out: there might very well be no property for the creditors to claim against.
In the UK, trespass is a civil matter, not a criminal one
That explains why they're seeking an injunction then. If the protestors trespass anyways, then they'll be not only trespassing but violating a court order, and contempt of court is a criminal infraction.
Many of those have "corrections" issued a few days later, meaning that they were NOT in fact, authoritative.
OK... So gather up corrections to any videos the user has watched, and when they arrive show them to the user as a "Notice bar" that will keep coming up until dismissed ---- If there is no correction, the noticebar can also be used to inform the user that a video they had watched was later found to be fake news with an optional link to a correcting source.
while the only legitimate, tangible, and productive "protest" you can have is to crash the market via legal and legitimate means.
I don't say that.... I am saying get your permit and have your protest march down the most highly trafficked street in a nearby city that you can find, and that is free speech. But it stops being free speech when you surround demonstrators around a target for extended period of time. Nobody has the right to harass specific targeted property owners by standing on their soil, or idly obstructing or interfering with the small public right of ways such as road access such as to obstruct access, interfere with their business, or otherwise disturb the public orderliness.
If you think that's wrong, we'll just hold a protest in your house.
Exactly. The "right to assemble" or protest is NOT a right to start staging a demonstration anywhere the hell you want. In general you should do it on a private property whose owner authorizes the demonstration OR in a designated public area where demonstrations are allowable.
Even if there happens to be some public land in close vicinity to the site where Things you object to are happening, And you would like to have your protest as close to them as possible to "Get in people's face" --- it is not out of the question for demonstrations of all kinds to be restricted in certain areas; E.G. Courtrooms publicly owned, but if you try and organize a protest inside an in-session courtroom, then you are going to be detained and probably arrested for breaching courtroom etiquette rules.
E.G. There may be a public right of way in front of your house, or your neighbor's house.
However, these are primarily designed for underground utilities and telephone poles, a small sidewalk for pedestrian access: sometimes a small buffer zone between the sidewalk and the street where neither vehicles nor pedestrians should be for safety purposes, and a publicly maintained road or street for vehicle access.
These are common public spaces owned for the purpose of being able to support government infrastructure and common carrier services, including enabling travel, effective emergency services, and lawful access to adjacent properties to people who own, have been invited to, or have other lawful business on properties to require access.
There is No right to these spaces. Depending on local laws, they may be available to demonstrations or not, but the local government has a right to impose restrictions on the time, place, and matter, and they can require a special permit.
I wouldn't want anyone protesting in my house ---- My feeling is these common right of way areas surrounding private property should NOT be available places to hold a substantial meeting or demonstration. Take your assembly to a park, or another proper meeting place.
Or apply for and pay for the permit and law enforcement presence to have road temporary closed for an hour at a pre-announced time, like any parade has to do: if you have the minimum number of demonstrators for this to be approved and want to march certain public streets in the city, But again, of course they will be limited in time, duration, and location, so the disruption to business is not significant.
Basically, because many protest groups rely on skirting the law and having a large group conducting activities which are technically illegal to try to bring attention to their message, And because such a large group is involved, it is difficult to hold anyone legally responsible for the violations of the law.
The fracking operations occur on fracking sites which are located on Private Property which the Oil companies have the right to control access to, because they are plots of land owned by or leased by the company ----- Nobody has the right to protest on private property without the owner's permission, And if the owner specifically tells you ahead of time to stay off their property, and you step onto it anyways, then you've committed criminal Trespass: this is basically what they're doing to these people which is being called "banning the protest" ----- they're pre-emptively seeking a court order that says "Stay off my land,
And stay away from my driveway".
The companies claim to seek injunction because the companies believe that protestors/protest groups intend to Trespass on their property in order to hold their protestes "Around the fracking sites", Or undertake other strategies designed to disrupt their lawful business activities --- such as having pedestrians standing in or otherwise outside their property blocking, harrassing, preventing, or slowing down the ability of authorized traffic to use the property access roads or streets or driveways, Or disrupt employee/vendor/company-related trucks or other vehicles' access to their property or to harass persons/vehicles entering or leaving their private properties.
As noted in the article:
The companies all stress they do not seek to restrict lawful forms of protest, but argue that activists should not be allowed to unduly disrupt their lawful business activity.
Since social media surveillance reveals the identities of many people likely to participate in such protests; the companies can go to the court and provide a List of Names and Pre-Emptively ask the courts for an Injunctive order that the named individuals Not set foot on our land, Or participate in any activity
to disrupt the business operation of one of our fracking sites.
dealing a further blow to Japan Inc.'s reputation for dependable quality.
Emissions tests to newer EPA standards such as CARB3 are not about product quality; they are about passing arbitrary regulations imposed upon them by a bureaucracy ---- the ever-evolving emissions standards actually COMPROMISE product quality from the customer's point of view, since the systems have to become ever more and more complicated to reduce emissions to arbitrary benchmarks, which means they are more prone to failures which cause them to stop working or become less efficient.
Given a choice between a vehicle where the testing wasn't fudged BUT will perform more poorly and fail more frequently AND a vehicle where the testing was fudged BUT the performance and reliability are better.... the higher quality product is the latter. That's why the remark about "Blow to their reputation" is BS. This is more another blow to the reputation of the regulators, in my book.
Of course the evolving government impositions are trending towards eventually mandating Zero emissions, which will essentially mean that all Combustion engines are going to be banned, and the most prone to failure equipment possible will be required to satisfy them: in other words, immature new technologies such as All-Electric or Alternative fuel.
A big chunk of these end up with people holding onto them because they like them
So how come not handle this fairly, and say 5% of the 10% of the breakage that represents what people are holding onto?
Doubtful that collector volume is significant.... First of all, many people radically overbuy their postage, and as a result have it sitting around for years, because people don't like to go to the post office often. These were among the early forever stamps, so the vast majority of "breakage" were likely buyers tricked by the tagline into thinking it would be a good deal to bulk-buy them and lock in the $0.46 postage rate, since up to that time postage tended to be increasing annually, surely by 2018 it would be like $1.00 to mail a first class letter, But eventually the stamps are likely to be redeemed for the service ---- There were many of these printed, and they don't have much collector value.
Stamp collecting/card collecting as hobbies have waned dramatically, so they're not likely to be deliberately kept around long solely for their aesthetics ----- value to collectors is primarily based on rarity and condition; I suppose the relevance regarding the picture is that it hasn't been destroyed, whereas stamps that have been postmarked are effectively already destroyed, thus also destroying the copyrighted image.
Perhaps the post office could offer a program where you can trade in your forever stamp for a new one and receive some kind of additional award for clearing up their copyright issues, so the USPS can destroy the remaining breakage.
One thing that could be done is to open up the pump, and flip its configuration switches to set it into a manual mode.
Seems a pretty likely real-world attack --- if the pumps have a manual mode. Probably the cabinets have cheap or generic locks, and it's not hard for a rogue to cut through a tamper-resistant sticker and then either just ignore it later or replace with one one of their own fresh sticker after tampering with the equipment.
Rank it second that perhaps they inserted a piece of rogue equipment between the pump and computer, or gained access to a management LAN used to control the pumps.
Getty should be refunding the $1500, because apparently the photographer didn't have the right to sell the rights that getty presumed to have offered the USPS.
Finally... they should negotiate a REASONABLE royalty. 5% Of the postage is not a reasonable royalty, because the stamp was not sold for the picture but a SERVICE ---- the value of the picture on the stamp is decorative; So a few pennies worth of the stamp's price can be attributed to its aesthetic value, and then 5% of that few pennies' worth per stamp is a reasonable royalty: not 5% of the total postage.
Slashdot Mirror
So what "assigns" a car maker the subsidy, and what mechanism "uses one up" ?
Could Eon create a second, third, and fourth Electric car company, lease some Tesla production facilities and license some Tesla IP to the additional companies, and get the subsidy for 200,000 more vehicles manufactured by each additional company?
By how much would a new car manufacturer's product, supply lines, and distribution be required to differ in order to say they are Different car companies for purpose of counting subsidies?
The real question is: Why didn't they continue the incentive by imposing a $X TAX on each delivery from any manufacturer of a Carbon-emitting vehicle the first time it is registered to be used on public roads?
China already banned exchanging Fiat/Bitcoin.
This action is NOT about protecting people... China sees opportunity, because of many millions of $$$ of bets from all over the world, they can arrest these people, and seize this money, and this $$$ will go straight to the government and corrupt law enforcement officials.
The people who placed these bets will not see a cent of their $$$ ever again, whether their bet wins or loses.
California doesn't have a GPDR: California has a new privacy act.
It doesn't offer the same protections as the GPDR does; however.
Then the police issue a Silver Alert to cover the entire state,
This is an example of abuse of the emergency broadcast capability.
The purpose of an emergency broadcast is supposed to be to Alert everyone to a public danger that
is relevant to many people in an area since it
affects the public at large NOT to try and deputize the public to assist authorities in stopping an incident affecting 1 person.
The Silver Alert is essentially a non-emergency for 99% of the population, some of whom will be roused from their sleep by spurious messages they can do nothing about --- First thing is respect people's sleep and don't issue a load alarm waking them up for this: the nature of the allerts certainly don't warrant interrupting broadcasts. For the most part only people awake and outside their home or with plans to go out in public have any chance of being able to spot the person the alert is about... Cell phone messages: Maybe on opt-in basis.
There should be another type of channel for these kinds of messages that is targeted as selectively or as broadly
as those willing to participate would choose.
I would suggest encouraging heavy media attention. And distribute Mobile Apps that can be used to receive FYI / Public Help Wanted Alerts with detailed scheduling, prioritization, and filtering controls.
The BS alerts of various sorts are already annoying, and i'm basically ignoring them already... Bl**** Hell;
during the summer there is a Severe Thunderstorm every other day; I know that, you know that -- we can hear the thunder well in advance, and by looking at the cloud formations in the sky and the Radar app it is obvious what will be going down.... more alerts are not the answer
Especially if you're going to test the system by generating alerts: first let me control HOW I receive alerts, and make them less intrusive --- If I hear part of an alert and don't want to listen to the rest, then I should be able to dismiss it.
I am sick of having Television and Radio programs disrupted --- I'm on cable, and if I so choose: what my DVR is recording should NOT be fscked up, because someone sent an EAS test while I was away. Also.... My TiVO has a defective response to even the "test" emergency alerts... It winds up LOCKING the tuner on a specific channel, that's presumably supposed to receive the alert, but it never RELEASES the tuner back to my control. Also; What the hell.... If I know very well what the emergency is, I should be able to tune my preferred news channel that generally provides BETTER more-local more up-to-date information than any EAS junk does... with no "Eas LOCK" preventing me from changing the channel on my own frickin' TV.
There should be thus: (1) No interruption of the transmission of programming; ENCODE the information and cause a "message" to be saved to the TV and/or DVR --- recordings should be unaffected;
(2) Better User-Interface Design; Play the alert but provide a Popup window that allows Acknowledging/Dismissing the alert.
they do not function as "investigative or law enforcement officers."
So they're not enforcing any laws by "screening" people and detailing + questioning suspicious individuals: what?
Whether or not FB can withhold access even if explicitly ordered to do so by the account owner depends on the law of the land,
Facebook has the right protected in their Terms of Service to shut my account off at ANY time while I am still alive, and they can delete all my data if they want -- Facebook DOES NOT have to provide me back a copy of any information that I had posted to it or that my friends had posted to me.
It would be VERY STRANGE for a court to claim that my successors have more rights than I do to force Facebook to provide access to ANYTHING on the account by name, even if I hadn't ordered for FB to Not allow my successors access upon death ---- Let alone if I had.
Especially given Facebook's Real Name and No Sharing Access to account policies.
Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die
Facebook is Not a landlord. Facebook is not a custodian with a duty to keep any of your property. Facebook is a service provider that you provided a copy of information ---- The Information may be your intellectual property, BUT Facebook is under no obligation to use their resources to distribute a copy of that information or even to store it or continue storing it; For example: Mandatory deletion after an article is 6 months old, or after an account is Inactive for 90 days, or Immediately upon death of the account holder would all be reasonable policies --- And Facebook has no obligation to deliver a free service to a successor OR permit a successor to continue free use of their services falsely pretending to be you ---- particularly since Facebook's compensation for providing the service specifically requires effective User individual-targeted advertising, and one that is not contracted to keep any property for you - Users don't even pay them for hosting -- Usually Facebook will keep everything or almost everything you post there for the life of your account, but Facebook aren't contractually obligated to anybody to retain anything - Even if you choose to rely on them keeping important information (By failing to make a local backup of your data) -- Anything anyone posts to FB can be deleted by FB from Facebook's servers at any time, and there's no agreement to the contrary.
Facebook is available to you free of charge, BUT you must commit to terms to use their services --- one of the terms is you use Only your Individual Name for your account -- Another required rule is you aren't allowed to Share or Transfer access to your account to anyone else - Facebook makes money from advertising to you based on personal data they collect about you
$200 bet for a minimum $1000 return is pretty good
For a return the complaint has to result in an investigation finding material support evidencing a substantial violation that is either large in financial impact or affects many more people than the complainant --- the $$$ is some compensation for the trouble they have suffered or payment for doing sufficient work to move the violation to the attention to the FCC - As a result, for a chance of being paid, they should require some evidence or detailed sworn statements in writing and the complainant submit to any interviews the FCC wants, otherwise you're out $200: You don't get $1000 for nothing, and if it's found that the person making the complaint apparently lied or falsified any information in the complaint form, or complained about an incident that did not happen, they can potentially be fined and imprisoned for 5 years for Making False Statements.
Would all created US documents used by an illegal migrant link back to a document in CA?
All the states want their tax money and to ensure drivers are properly insured and licensed -- so unless the vehicle was stolen
then whoever's driving it had to REGISTER it: which requires providing some identifying paperwork including an address.
In short.... the license plate links through official databases to a bunch of info.
A decent chunk of people couldn't throw $200+ toward a complaint even if it would definitely result in action.
Yeah... it shouldn't cost a net $200 to complain.... Or if it does cost $200; the FCC should pay a BOUNTY to citizens raising a complaint unless it is investigated and found to not have merit. For example: Pay $200 to complain, and if investigation shows the complaint is valid, then the company should be fined or required to pay a settlement plus the investigative, administrative and FCC legal costs, and the complainer(s) that resulted in that investigation receive a payment of 2% of the resulting fine or settlement, but no less than $1000 for a founded complaint.
Wouldn't that make them agents of the state
No, because ICE have not specially commissioned the malls to run a surveillance operation ---- the malls already run surveillance systems, likely including the plate recognition feature - for their own internal security purposes, and the data is not related to a business transaction with a customer.
If the data is available for sale to the public, then ICE can purchase access
Law Enforcement has at least the same ability as private companies and private individuals to contract with a mall for access to databases made from their surveillance footage.
If this were an online activity, it would be blatantly illegal under the GDPR
Basic response from any US company to the GPDR folks
Both ICE and malls in California do their business in the US; all the business transactions with these customers whose data is processed occur in the US. GDPR is European law, and companies' activities within US jurisdiction are not subject to European law --- even if the customer were a European national allowed to drive in the US.
And they wonder why some of us prefer to shop online.
What makes you think the Delivery truck or person/drone walking up your driveway isn't equipped with a camera equipped with GPS, and/or footage won't be submitted to license plate recognition software, and shared with any Law Enforcement agency willing to pay for access to the shared database of License Plate/GPS locations?
Shoot... if ICE is willing to pay enough revenue for license plate data, they could probably convince Meter readers working for the Gas and Power companies to don a camera for a little extra $$$ on the side.
than the husband is still liable for it.
No... Unless the debt is jointly in both married person's name: the deceased's estate will be liable for it, if the claim against the estate is made within the time limit ---- the surviving spouse is under no obligation to assume the debt.
Key assets like Real-Estate are likely to have been titled into a trust, so unless the debt is a mortgage or other secured debt: by the time the deceased's estate is settled out: there might very well be no property for the creditors to claim against.
In the UK, trespass is a civil matter, not a criminal one
That explains why they're seeking an injunction then. If the protestors trespass anyways, then they'll
be not only trespassing but violating a court order, and contempt of court is a criminal infraction.
Many of those have "corrections" issued a few days later, meaning that they were NOT in fact, authoritative.
OK... So gather up corrections to any videos the user has watched, and when they arrive show them to the user as a "Notice bar" that will keep coming up until dismissed ---- If there is no correction, the noticebar can also be used to inform the user that a video they had watched was later found to be fake news with an optional link to a correcting source.
while the only legitimate, tangible, and productive "protest" you can have is to crash the market via legal and legitimate means.
I don't say that.... I am saying get your permit and have your protest march down the most highly trafficked street in a nearby city that you can find, and that is free speech. But it stops being free speech when you surround demonstrators around a target for extended period of time. Nobody has the right to harass specific targeted property owners by standing on their soil, or idly obstructing or interfering with the small public right of ways such as road access such as to obstruct access, interfere with their business, or otherwise disturb the public orderliness.
If you think that's wrong, we'll just hold a protest in your house.
Exactly. The "right to assemble" or protest is NOT a right to start staging a demonstration anywhere the hell you want.
In general you should do it on a private property whose owner authorizes the demonstration OR in a designated public area where demonstrations are allowable.
Even if there happens to be some public land in close vicinity to the site where Things you object to are happening, And you would
like to have your protest as close to them as possible to "Get in people's face" --- it is not out of the question for demonstrations of all kinds
to be restricted in certain areas; E.G. Courtrooms publicly owned, but if you try and organize a protest inside an in-session courtroom,
then you are going to be detained and probably arrested for breaching courtroom etiquette rules.
E.G. There may be a public right of way in front of your house, or your neighbor's house.
However, these are primarily designed for underground utilities and telephone poles, a small sidewalk for pedestrian access: sometimes a small buffer zone between the sidewalk and the street where neither vehicles nor pedestrians should be for safety purposes, and a publicly maintained road or street for vehicle access.
These are common public spaces owned for the purpose of being able to support government infrastructure and common carrier services, including enabling travel, effective emergency services, and lawful access to adjacent properties to people who own, have been invited to, or have other lawful business on properties to require access.
There is No right to these spaces. Depending on local laws, they may be available to demonstrations or not, but
the local government has a right to impose restrictions on the time, place, and matter, and they can require a special permit.
I wouldn't want anyone protesting in my house ---- My feeling is these common right of way areas surrounding private property should NOT be available places to hold a substantial meeting or demonstration. Take your assembly to a park, or another proper meeting place.
Or apply for and pay for the permit and law enforcement presence to have road temporary closed for an hour at a pre-announced time, like any parade has to do: if you have the minimum number of demonstrators for this to be approved and want to march certain public streets in the city, But again, of course they will be limited in time, duration, and location, so the disruption to business is not significant.
how exactly are those leading to protest bans?
Basically, because many protest groups rely on skirting the law and having a large group conducting activities which are technically illegal to try to bring attention to their message, And because such a large group is involved, it is difficult to hold anyone legally responsible for the violations of the law.
The fracking operations occur on fracking sites which are located on Private Property which the Oil companies have the right to control access to, because they are plots of land owned by or leased by the company ----- Nobody has the right to protest on private property without the owner's permission, And if the owner specifically tells you ahead of time to stay off their property, and you step onto it anyways, then you've committed criminal Trespass: this is basically what they're doing to these people which is being called "banning the protest" ----- they're pre-emptively seeking a court order that says "Stay off my land,
And stay away from my driveway".
The companies claim to seek injunction because the companies believe that protestors/protest groups intend to Trespass on their property in order to hold their protestes "Around the fracking sites", Or undertake other strategies designed to disrupt their lawful business activities --- such as having pedestrians standing in or otherwise outside their property blocking, harrassing, preventing, or slowing down the ability of authorized traffic to use the property access roads or streets or driveways, Or disrupt employee/vendor/company-related trucks or other vehicles' access to their property or to harass persons/vehicles entering or leaving their private properties.
As noted in the article:
Since social media surveillance reveals the identities of many people likely to participate in such protests; the companies can go to the court and provide a List of Names and Pre-Emptively ask the courts for an Injunctive order that the named individuals Not set foot on our land, Or participate in any activity
to disrupt the business operation of one of our fracking sites.
dealing a further blow to Japan Inc.'s reputation for dependable quality.
Emissions tests to newer EPA standards such as CARB3 are not about product quality; they are about passing arbitrary regulations imposed upon them by a bureaucracy ---- the ever-evolving emissions standards actually COMPROMISE product quality from the customer's point of view, since the systems have to become ever more and more complicated to reduce emissions to arbitrary benchmarks, which means they are more prone to failures which cause them to stop working or become less efficient.
Given a choice between a vehicle where the testing wasn't fudged BUT will perform more poorly and fail more frequently AND a vehicle where the testing was fudged BUT the performance and reliability are better.... the higher quality product is the latter. That's why the remark about "Blow to their reputation" is BS. This is more another blow to the reputation of the regulators, in my book.
Of course the evolving government impositions are trending towards eventually mandating Zero emissions, which will essentially mean that all Combustion engines are going to be banned, and the most prone to failure equipment possible will be required to satisfy them: in other words, immature new technologies such as All-Electric or Alternative fuel.
A big chunk of these end up with people holding onto them because they like them
So how come not handle this fairly, and say 5% of the 10% of the breakage that represents what people are holding onto?
Doubtful that collector volume is significant.... First of all, many people radically overbuy their postage, and as a result have it sitting around for years, because people don't like to go to the post office often. These were among the early forever stamps, so the vast majority of "breakage" were likely buyers tricked by the tagline into thinking it would be a good deal to bulk-buy them and lock in the $0.46 postage rate, since up to that time postage tended to be increasing annually, surely by 2018 it would be like $1.00 to mail a first class letter, But eventually the stamps are likely to be redeemed for the service ---- There were many of these printed, and they don't have much collector value.
Stamp collecting/card collecting as hobbies have waned dramatically, so they're not likely to be deliberately kept around long solely for their aesthetics ----- value to collectors is primarily based on rarity and condition; I suppose the relevance regarding the picture is that it hasn't been destroyed, whereas stamps that have been postmarked are effectively already destroyed, thus also destroying the copyrighted image.
Perhaps the post office could offer a program where you can trade in your forever stamp for a new one and receive some kind of additional award for clearing up their copyright issues, so the USPS can destroy the remaining breakage.
One thing that could be done is to open up the pump, and flip its configuration switches to set it into a manual mode.
Seems a pretty likely real-world attack --- if the pumps have a manual mode. Probably the cabinets have cheap or generic locks, and it's not hard for a rogue to cut through a tamper-resistant sticker and then either just ignore it later or replace with one one of their own fresh sticker after tampering with the equipment.
Rank it second that perhaps they inserted a piece of rogue equipment between the pump and computer, or gained access to a management LAN used to control the pumps.
Getty should be refunding the $1500, because apparently the photographer didn't have the right to sell the rights that getty presumed to have offered the USPS.
Finally... they should negotiate a REASONABLE royalty. 5% Of the postage is not a reasonable royalty, because the stamp was not sold for the picture but a SERVICE ---- the value of the picture on the stamp is decorative; So a few pennies worth of the stamp's price can be attributed to its aesthetic value, and then 5% of that few pennies' worth per stamp is a reasonable royalty: not 5% of the total postage.