So, you knew what I meant by arresting the press then? You could have instead replied that freedom of the press is not violated by the summary arrest of members of the press as that was not what the framers had in mind. I would argue though, that giving the government the power to arrest members of the press in order to keep them from reporting on events in a public space is a freedom of the press issue, at least in spirit.
You are correct up to the point when the press identify themselves and are then arrested as happened several times during the Occupy protests. No matter who was right, it *is* a freedom of the press issue, and we as a society must chose which takes priority. Do we allow officers to prevent journalists from observing on public land, which is the point you argue with "If everyone is being removed from an area for reason X, then that includes the press." Or, do we value the public's ability to gain knowledge via our journalists to keep the government in check?
So what you are saying is that arresting the press at a gathering on public land is not a freedom of the press issue? What you mean is that we can say what we want, but are not permitted to observe what is happening on our land?
More than 0.5% of the population is openly gay. I fail to see how you are forced to think anything by anyone. You are free to be a bigot if you so choose, and others are free to react to your viewpoint as they see fit.
I think that our copyright laws are deeply flawed, but the slippery slope you describe does not start at a provider that happened to have copyrighted content, but it starts with people that knowingly gave money to uploaders for works they knew were copyrighted with the intent of enriching themselves with advertising and subscription revenue. That's a far different case, I think.
If you would read the indictment, it's not a single complaint. It's the fact that the owners were sending emails to each other about how they were paying uploaders cash for copyrighted works to drive traffic and subscriptions.
Now, one could argue that shutting down the entire service was the wrong way to go about this, but one should not argue that a single complaint was the cause of the take-down of the entire cloud.
As for being extra-judicial, that indictment was signed by a judge and the foreman of the grand jury that heard the arguments.
They are aiming for under 5 lbs, that's an awful lot of weight to add to a 5 oz phone. A sixteen-fold increase might be a bit much to say one is adding medical instrumentation to a phone--it might be more accurate to say one is adding a phone to a medical instrument.
I see your point, but the minor law does say to wear the manufacturer's seatbelt, only a seatbelt. I agree that you should do what's safer for you, but finding a seatbelt solution that works is safest, and satisfies the law to boot. Not wearing a seatbelt is less safe and breaking the law to boot.
Or you could go to a shop and have them modify the seatbelt for you, which would be the safer thing to do than squabble about minor laws when your safety is at stake.
The US auto industry is not uncompetitive because of their unions, but because of their lack of engineering quality and desirable designs. What the unions ask for in the US is a subset of what workers already enjoy in most other civilised countries.
Sherman Antitrust act, for having a secret agreement with a content producer that can remove content of their competitors at will, thereby giving them an unfair advantage.
While it might not be the crux of this dispute, if this turns out to be true Google might have to explain in a future antitrust hearing how it is that a media company has the power to remove any video it feels is competitive with it.
Not that I don't think you're right, but if you love the service and it's worth it to you then why not wait until they destroy Netflix's value proposition rather than doing it preemptively?
What exactly did they share and with whom when I searched for "occupy seattle". And what did they store, and when and with whom did they share that stored data.
If you cannot answer that question in the specific, it's not clear enough. 'We share data with people' is not very clear.
. Would you prefer they extract.001/$YOUR_LOCAL_CURRENCY from your bank account everytime you use it?
Yes and no.
The problem with ad-supported the searcher-is-the-product Google is that it is exploitative to those that don't realize the ramifications since it's not in Google's best interest to be completely honest with how they operate and monetize. Those in the know can prevent some of those techniques they understand from harvesting their every bit, but the majority are in the dark. To me, that feels a bit underhanded.
The problem with for-pay the searcher-is-the-customer Google is that any payment scheme that is easy and secure to use today will require tying all those searches to an account, giving Google not only revenue from searchers, but unavoidable information about them too. That's double-dipping, and feels a bit overmuch.
One could I suppose sell anonymous search codes at the local cash shop and have them be good for 100 searches or whatnot. Or some other scheme, but that's not very cheap in a cost per payment method nor is it very convenient.
to some extent the BBC UK service, but certainly the BBC World Service, trail the "contact us at facebook" line for programs - it is the only way they are allowing people to contact them. It is insidious.
They publish their contact address: BBC World Service Bush House, The Strand London WC2B 4PH UK
Oh, wait, that'd require forming your own opinion, as well as actual cognitive reasoning, and you're an iOS user. Silly me.
Forming one's own opinion and applying actual cognitive reasoning does not go very well with making broad sweeping generalisations about an entire user-base with diverse needs to fill. Especially when the person you call an iOS user did not specify if they were in that set or not, merely commented that many iOS users are such because they feel a walled garden is safer. It's pretty presumptuous to attack him or her for not forming his or her own opinion based on a comment he or she made about a set of which his or her membership is unknown.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you knew what I meant by arresting the press then? You could have instead replied that freedom of the press is not violated by the summary arrest of members of the press as that was not what the framers had in mind. I would argue though, that giving the government the power to arrest members of the press in order to keep them from reporting on events in a public space is a freedom of the press issue, at least in spirit.
You are correct up to the point when the press identify themselves and are then arrested as happened several times during the Occupy protests. No matter who was right, it *is* a freedom of the press issue, and we as a society must chose which takes priority. Do we allow officers to prevent journalists from observing on public land, which is the point you argue with "If everyone is being removed from an area for reason X, then that includes the press." Or, do we value the public's ability to gain knowledge via our journalists to keep the government in check?
For your edification, from the OED:
press, n.1 3. e. With sing. or pl. concord. Journalists, newspaper reporters collectively. Also: an individual reporter. Chiefly with the.
So what you are saying is that arresting the press at a gathering on public land is not a freedom of the press issue? What you mean is that we can say what we want, but are not permitted to observe what is happening on our land?
More than 0.5% of the population is openly gay. I fail to see how you are forced to think anything by anyone. You are free to be a bigot if you so choose, and others are free to react to your viewpoint as they see fit.
Microsoft was supporting of same-sex couples' equality before Google existed.
I think that our copyright laws are deeply flawed, but the slippery slope you describe does not start at a provider that happened to have copyrighted content, but it starts with people that knowingly gave money to uploaders for works they knew were copyrighted with the intent of enriching themselves with advertising and subscription revenue. That's a far different case, I think.
If you would read the indictment, it's not a single complaint. It's the fact that the owners were sending emails to each other about how they were paying uploaders cash for copyrighted works to drive traffic and subscriptions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78786408/Mega-Indictment
Now, one could argue that shutting down the entire service was the wrong way to go about this, but one should not argue that a single complaint was the cause of the take-down of the entire cloud.
As for being extra-judicial, that indictment was signed by a judge and the foreman of the grand jury that heard the arguments.
The link was not labelled typical use but heavy use. Which of those states is most like 'heavy use'?
They are aiming for under 5 lbs, that's an awful lot of weight to add to a 5 oz phone. A sixteen-fold increase might be a bit much to say one is adding medical instrumentation to a phone--it might be more accurate to say one is adding a phone to a medical instrument.
I see your point, but the minor law does say to wear the manufacturer's seatbelt, only a seatbelt. I agree that you should do what's safer for you, but finding a seatbelt solution that works is safest, and satisfies the law to boot. Not wearing a seatbelt is less safe and breaking the law to boot.
Or you could go to a shop and have them modify the seatbelt for you, which would be the safer thing to do than squabble about minor laws when your safety is at stake.
He said 30 days, or monthly, so 12 (December's password) becomes 1 (January's password).
The US auto industry is not uncompetitive because of their unions, but because of their lack of engineering quality and desirable designs. What the unions ask for in the US is a subset of what workers already enjoy in most other civilised countries.
Sherman Antitrust act, for having a secret agreement with a content producer that can remove content of their competitors at will, thereby giving them an unfair advantage.
While it might not be the crux of this dispute, if this turns out to be true Google might have to explain in a future antitrust hearing how it is that a media company has the power to remove any video it feels is competitive with it.
Not that I don't think you're right, but if you love the service and it's worth it to you then why not wait until they destroy Netflix's value proposition rather than doing it preemptively?
What exactly did they share and with whom when I searched for "occupy seattle". And what did they store, and when and with whom did they share that stored data.
If you cannot answer that question in the specific, it's not clear enough. 'We share data with people' is not very clear.
. Would you prefer they extract .001/$YOUR_LOCAL_CURRENCY from your bank account everytime you use it?
Yes and no.
The problem with ad-supported the searcher-is-the-product Google is that it is exploitative to those that don't realize the ramifications since it's not in Google's best interest to be completely honest with how they operate and monetize. Those in the know can prevent some of those techniques they understand from harvesting their every bit, but the majority are in the dark. To me, that feels a bit underhanded.
The problem with for-pay the searcher-is-the-customer Google is that any payment scheme that is easy and secure to use today will require tying all those searches to an account, giving Google not only revenue from searchers, but unavoidable information about them too. That's double-dipping, and feels a bit overmuch.
One could I suppose sell anonymous search codes at the local cash shop and have them be good for 100 searches or whatnot. Or some other scheme, but that's not very cheap in a cost per payment method nor is it very convenient.
Who in the industrialized world pays $19.96 per MB to download updates over Wi-Fi?
No one, but incidentally that is the data roaming rate from AT&T in Hungary.
Since when is fuel consumption not a concern in racing? Fuel has mass, and volume.
to some extent the BBC UK service, but certainly the BBC World Service, trail the "contact us at facebook" line for programs - it is the only way they are allowing people to contact them. It is insidious.
They publish their contact address:
BBC World Service
Bush House, The Strand
London WC2B 4PH
UK
They also have a web-form to contact them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/institutional/2009/03/000000_contact_us.shtml
Oh, wait, that'd require forming your own opinion, as well as actual cognitive reasoning, and you're an iOS user. Silly me.
Forming one's own opinion and applying actual cognitive reasoning does not go very well with making broad sweeping generalisations about an entire user-base with diverse needs to fill. Especially when the person you call an iOS user did not specify if they were in that set or not, merely commented that many iOS users are such because they feel a walled garden is safer. It's pretty presumptuous to attack him or her for not forming his or her own opinion based on a comment he or she made about a set of which his or her membership is unknown.
What good is trying to get 56,000 points instead of 55,000 points, if no one knows you've done it?
Personal gratification?
The fact that you cannot play without sharing your scores tells me it's doing more than just that.