Except that Kelo was completely constitutional. It says right in the constitution that the government can seize property as long as they properly compensate the previous owner. If the government abuses this right, throw the bums out.
There's a good example of language trouble: nobody thinks they are trying to take down an aircraft. So that warning will do no good. The problem is the temporary and permanent eye damage.
Not a ban, but education absolutely. Perhaps licensing. For sellers too. I don't like the idea of a technological future where only our betters (the cops) can get cool technology. It has already happened with some guns, it's going to happen with the lasers, it's going to happen with remote control helicopters. The only solution is to educate the public.
Upon further review, I guess it's a matter of opinion whether or not it is a stupid word. But there can be no disagreement that the usage of it in that sentence was stupid and ignorant. It isn't a verb, for christ's sake.
Regardless, it's a stupid word that seems to have been used simply because someone's thesaurus suggested it. It's one of those word-salad words you see in power supply reviews, used simply to adhere to the fake rule of not using the same word twice.
Ridiculous. The content wasn't regulated, but the nuts and bolts are. Things like TCP/IP and routers and shit. You are confusing the roads for the route.
I've heard that Romney's "tell" for when he is uncomfortable is to laugh. Partially because he can always claim that the next thing he vomits forth was "just a joke".
It doesn't really matter too much who turns up to vote, since each registration can only be used once per election. And you have to know the name and signature used to register to vote. So if I don't vote and someone goes in and votes using my registration, there are no extra votes.
Your photo is an original work, just as if you took a pencil and drew your own copy. But the difference is subtle; the copyright is for "a photograph of the Mona Lisa" not "the Mona Lisa". Your copyright only covers your rights concerning your particular photo, and has nothing to do with the Mona Lisa.
That argument might work for things like strict liability and other things for which it is in the public interest to not allow the public to waive or that do not affect a regular person's rights and ability to enjoy their end of the contract, but not for something like commercial photography. You agreed to it when you didn't ask for your money back. As with so many other things, when you enter the commercial realm, you are burdened with a stricter responsibility to know what you are doing than the general public.
Yes, the photo belongs to you, but they could potentially sue you for ownership of the copyright, since you created that work only through violating their rights or contract of admission.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that Kelo was completely constitutional. It says right in the constitution that the government can seize property as long as they properly compensate the previous owner. If the government abuses this right, throw the bums out.
There's a good example of language trouble: nobody thinks they are trying to take down an aircraft. So that warning will do no good. The problem is the temporary and permanent eye damage.
Not a ban, but education absolutely. Perhaps licensing. For sellers too. I don't like the idea of a technological future where only our betters (the cops) can get cool technology. It has already happened with some guns, it's going to happen with the lasers, it's going to happen with remote control helicopters. The only solution is to educate the public.
They tented during the game because they thought his fat mother had big tits. Nobody liked Dave.
Information isn't private if your friends have it.
Upon further review, I guess it's a matter of opinion whether or not it is a stupid word. But there can be no disagreement that the usage of it in that sentence was stupid and ignorant. It isn't a verb, for christ's sake.
Your information isn't private on Facebook because you gave it to them.
Regardless, it's a stupid word that seems to have been used simply because someone's thesaurus suggested it. It's one of those word-salad words you see in power supply reviews, used simply to adhere to the fake rule of not using the same word twice.
Ridiculous. The content wasn't regulated, but the nuts and bolts are. Things like TCP/IP and routers and shit. You are confusing the roads for the route.
I've heard that Romney's "tell" for when he is uncomfortable is to laugh. Partially because he can always claim that the next thing he vomits forth was "just a joke".
Depends on how you define peaceful. Hint: blocking the fucking street is not.
That's way easier than just folding a piece of paper in half and slipping it into a locked ballot box.
and If you can get a barcode reader working you can get OCR working.
Sure thing, champ.
There is a right to not be denied the right to vote...
The right is implicit.
They might as well have said "poll taxes are legal if you can get a refund on your taxes for the cost". The Supreme Court screwed that one up.
It doesn't really matter too much who turns up to vote, since each registration can only be used once per election. And you have to know the name and signature used to register to vote. So if I don't vote and someone goes in and votes using my registration, there are no extra votes.
More like Capitalist Hill, amiright?
I don't think you know what those words mean.
You might have a copyright on the images that you created with the Xerox machine, but you wouldn't have a copyright on the content.
Your photo is an original work, just as if you took a pencil and drew your own copy. But the difference is subtle; the copyright is for "a photograph of the Mona Lisa" not "the Mona Lisa". Your copyright only covers your rights concerning your particular photo, and has nothing to do with the Mona Lisa.
That argument might work for things like strict liability and other things for which it is in the public interest to not allow the public to waive or that do not affect a regular person's rights and ability to enjoy their end of the contract, but not for something like commercial photography. You agreed to it when you didn't ask for your money back. As with so many other things, when you enter the commercial realm, you are burdened with a stricter responsibility to know what you are doing than the general public.
Yes, the photo belongs to you, but they could potentially sue you for ownership of the copyright, since you created that work only through violating their rights or contract of admission.
Not to mention, oxycodone and heroin are two different drugs with different methods of delivery.
It is if someone is willing to buy an insurance policy to replace it.
Because some people think IT/web development work is easy. "Oh, I'll just build some servers and websites."