I'd rather see someone in charge of making these decision demoted or fired and sued in civil court, rather than see the taxpayers pay a bunch of ambulance chasers.
Hmm, no market for used cars since everyone is just giving them up. No market for new cars either, except the self driving ones that few individuals will own.
I don't see automakers adopting this business model any time soon. Same for the finance industry that exists to loan people money for cars.
I'd be careful to avoid what he is smoking, you don't want your mind altered that much.
Prove and probably aren't two words I like to see used together. I guess to a statistician or others who divine the future from tea leaves or entrails it is acceptable.
Trademarks are a restriction on pretending to be someone else. If I have a business that becomes known by a certain name and I apply for protection for that name, it's protecting both my business and the public from someone trying to capitalize on the good (or bad) reputation I have established.
Yes, I don't deny that they are, however ownership is not absolute. It's why companies like Xerox have to fight to keep the term from becoming generic. Google Genericide. I wonder how long before Google becomes genericided.
Also, you can't sit on a Trademark the way you can sit on a domain name. You must use it in trade and protect it, or it can be considered abandoned in a little as three years (US). Too bad we don't have s similar limit for copyright.
They determined that license plates were government speech and that the government could restrict it. It's not like they outlawed offensive bumper stickers.
Besides, trademarks exist to benefit the public to prevent confusion in the marketplace. In theory. They should not be considered property, not even "intellectual property" in my opinion. They should exist only to prevent a 3rd party from taking advantage of the good (or bad) relationship between a mark holder and the public.
If you are a real journalist doing a real story, you will already have other sources that support whatever story you are writing. Getting the FOIA data may be the "smoking gun" you need to publish your story. Paying for that is the coast of doing business, and in many cases, you are just paying for actual costs of photocopies.
Having the public information "leak" early should have minimal impact on your ability to recover the investment you have put into researching the story and interviewing people for quotes. If anything you will be in a stronger position to explain what the data means and increase audience for story.
If you can't compete with that much of a head start, then maybe you need to try harder next time.
I did read it. And I stand by what I said. They only reason not to publish every public document held by the government is because there are some documents for a variety of reasons need to be held private, at least for a period of time. And yes, it take effort to sort out which is which. However, once that effort has been made, by someone paying to sort it out. The reason for holding it back disappears.
I think that it is more likely, is that with greater access to these pre-vetted documents, more issues of public interest could pursued and exposed. Something missed by a few eyes could be seen by many more.
Once the information has been collected and vetted to make sure it's eligible to be released under the FOIA, it should absolutely be released to the public. The government has no duty to protects a requester business model.
I have a hard time getting excited about the new movies. I think I'm content to just enjoy the original trilogy and politely ignore anything new that comes along unless I hear something from sources that I trust that makes me change my mind.
I understand the risks of carrying a firearm and that you must be prepared to use the weapon if needed. But that does not mean that you consciously plan on killing people. In a defensive situation you shoot to stop a threat, killing is a possible outcome, but it should never be your goal.
If 5 seconds ago, someone attacks you and tries to take your weapon
Unfortunately for your argument, even that circumstance is under dispute. By some accounts, the officer tried to quickly open his car door while he was too close to Brown, the door bounced off him and hit the officer, and then the officer shot Brown (the first time) in retaliation for his own stupidity.
I agree the facts are under dispute. I'm merely pointing out the scenario where lethal force is justified.
the only way to deescalate it back to a non-lethal level is complete and unconditional surrender.
(Continuing the same account) after getting shot the first time, Brown ran away (justly fearing for his life), got shot at again, and turned around attempting to surrender. Then the officer continued shooting until he fell over dead.
Again, more facts that are disputed. I don't know that he was fired at when his back was turned, and I don't know that he was actually trying to surrender.
The lesson black Americans are learning from this atrocity is:
If you attempt to assert yourself, you will be murdered.
If you attempt to flee, you will be murdered.
Even if you attempt to surrender, you will still be murdered!
If any lesson can be learned by black or white Americans, it should be this. Don't rob stores. If a cop tells you to get out of the road, do it without comment, and certainly don't take a swing at him though the window of his police vehicle. But, if you've done the first three, under no circumstances reach in and try to grab his gun.
None of the shots hit him from behind. All three autopsies agree on this. The rest of that quote is just noise.
8+ shots fired rapidly in two bursts within 10 seconds doesn't not indicate much for either side. In defensive situations, you fire until the threat is stopped. I don't think at any point the cop ever thought "I'm going to kill this kid". I think he reacted to a situation that escalated quickly into a life or death situation much the same as any person would. Maybe he overreached, but maybe he used the exactly the amount of force needed to resolve the situation. I simply don't have enough information to know and I doubt anyone getting their information from media reports does either.
If 5 seconds ago, someone attacks you and tries to take your weapon, yes, the threshold for justification of lethal force is crossed. In fact, once the altercation escalates to the point of struggling for a cop's weapon, the only way to deescalate it back to a non-lethal level is complete and unconditional surrender. The cop has every right to attempt to stop a fleeing attacker even if lethal force is required.
Actually, yeah, if you try to disarm a cop and get wounded doing it, then you try to flee, the cop has the right to use force (including lethal) to effect an arrest.
There are conflicting accounts as to if the guy was trying to surrender, or if he attempted to lunge for the cop a second time. I honestly don't know what was happening. But, I don't think the cop was planning on killing the guy. Possibly his judgment got clouded after the struggle during which his gun discharged twice. Against a much larger/younger/stronger assailant anything short of him falling to the ground spread eagle should be viewed suspiciously.
Then what is the issue with the old record being out there? If Europeans are as eager to forgive and forget past crimes as you suggest, then they won't hold it against someone and no harm is caused.
The point is to determine if each request is covered by the law. The problem is that the requests they get are not individually approved by a court, that would make it too easy. Instead, they HAVE to be the judge of which requests are covered by the law.
Personally, I think this is a BS law. If something is legally present on web, ie. a ten year old news story, then it should be index-able. However, if there a a factual problem, or contains private information, then the site owners should be required to correct it or take it down. The idea of going after the index is ridiculous, not effective and lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like he got an A+. He even aced the extra credit.
I'd rather see someone in charge of making these decision demoted or fired and sued in civil court, rather than see the taxpayers pay a bunch of ambulance chasers.
I'm not saying it's Aliens... But....
It's Aliens.
Mac products a few years ago.
I would work less if I didn't have to work for my income. Am I the only one?
If you do write it off your taxes, you didn't really donate it anyway. Uncle Sam (or the equivalent) did.
Nothing wrong with that really. Just don't confuse it with a real donation where you don't get anything back in return.
Hmm, no market for used cars since everyone is just giving them up. No market for new cars either, except the self driving ones that few individuals will own.
I don't see automakers adopting this business model any time soon. Same for the finance industry that exists to loan people money for cars.
I'd be careful to avoid what he is smoking, you don't want your mind altered that much.
Prove and probably aren't two words I like to see used together. I guess to a statistician or others who divine the future from tea leaves or entrails it is acceptable.
So you are saying there's a chance?
Trademarks are a restriction on pretending to be someone else. If I have a business that becomes known by a certain name and I apply for protection for that name, it's protecting both my business and the public from someone trying to capitalize on the good (or bad) reputation I have established.
Yes, I don't deny that they are, however ownership is not absolute. It's why companies like Xerox have to fight to keep the term from becoming generic. Google Genericide. I wonder how long before Google becomes genericided.
Also, you can't sit on a Trademark the way you can sit on a domain name. You must use it in trade and protect it, or it can be considered abandoned in a little as three years (US). Too bad we don't have s similar limit for copyright.
They determined that license plates were government speech and that the government could restrict it. It's not like they outlawed offensive bumper stickers.
Besides, trademarks exist to benefit the public to prevent confusion in the marketplace. In theory. They should not be considered property, not even "intellectual property" in my opinion. They should exist only to prevent a 3rd party from taking advantage of the good (or bad) relationship between a mark holder and the public.
I'd much rather focus on their practices. People will frequently disagree about beliefs, and should be allowed too.
If you are a real journalist doing a real story, you will already have other sources that support whatever story you are writing. Getting the FOIA data may be the "smoking gun" you need to publish your story. Paying for that is the coast of doing business, and in many cases, you are just paying for actual costs of photocopies.
Having the public information "leak" early should have minimal impact on your ability to recover the investment you have put into researching the story and interviewing people for quotes. If anything you will be in a stronger position to explain what the data means and increase audience for story.
If you can't compete with that much of a head start, then maybe you need to try harder next time.
I did read it. And I stand by what I said. They only reason not to publish every public document held by the government is because there are some documents for a variety of reasons need to be held private, at least for a period of time. And yes, it take effort to sort out which is which. However, once that effort has been made, by someone paying to sort it out. The reason for holding it back disappears.
I think that it is more likely, is that with greater access to these pre-vetted documents, more issues of public interest could pursued and exposed. Something missed by a few eyes could be seen by many more.
Once the information has been collected and vetted to make sure it's eligible to be released under the FOIA, it should absolutely be released to the public. The government has no duty to protects a requester business model.
I call them skeet.
Pull!!
And my mod points just expired. sigh.
I have a hard time getting excited about the new movies. I think I'm content to just enjoy the original trilogy and politely ignore anything new that comes along unless I hear something from sources that I trust that makes me change my mind.
I understand the risks of carrying a firearm and that you must be prepared to use the weapon if needed. But that does not mean that you consciously plan on killing people. In a defensive situation you shoot to stop a threat, killing is a possible outcome, but it should never be your goal.
Unfortunately for your argument, even that circumstance is under dispute. By some accounts, the officer tried to quickly open his car door while he was too close to Brown, the door bounced off him and hit the officer, and then the officer shot Brown (the first time) in retaliation for his own stupidity.
I agree the facts are under dispute. I'm merely pointing out the scenario where lethal force is justified.
(Continuing the same account) after getting shot the first time, Brown ran away (justly fearing for his life), got shot at again, and turned around attempting to surrender. Then the officer continued shooting until he fell over dead.
Again, more facts that are disputed. I don't know that he was fired at when his back was turned, and I don't know that he was actually trying to surrender.
The lesson black Americans are learning from this atrocity is:
If any lesson can be learned by black or white Americans, it should be this. Don't rob stores. If a cop tells you to get out of the road, do it without comment, and certainly don't take a swing at him though the window of his police vehicle. But, if you've done the first three, under no circumstances reach in and try to grab his gun.
None of the shots hit him from behind. All three autopsies agree on this. The rest of that quote is just noise.
8+ shots fired rapidly in two bursts within 10 seconds doesn't not indicate much for either side. In defensive situations, you fire until the threat is stopped. I don't think at any point the cop ever thought "I'm going to kill this kid". I think he reacted to a situation that escalated quickly into a life or death situation much the same as any person would. Maybe he overreached, but maybe he used the exactly the amount of force needed to resolve the situation. I simply don't have enough information to know and I doubt anyone getting their information from media reports does either.
If 5 seconds ago, someone attacks you and tries to take your weapon, yes, the threshold for justification of lethal force is crossed. In fact, once the altercation escalates to the point of struggling for a cop's weapon, the only way to deescalate it back to a non-lethal level is complete and unconditional surrender. The cop has every right to attempt to stop a fleeing attacker even if lethal force is required.
Actually, yeah, if you try to disarm a cop and get wounded doing it, then you try to flee, the cop has the right to use force (including lethal) to effect an arrest.
There are conflicting accounts as to if the guy was trying to surrender, or if he attempted to lunge for the cop a second time. I honestly don't know what was happening. But, I don't think the cop was planning on killing the guy. Possibly his judgment got clouded after the struggle during which his gun discharged twice. Against a much larger/younger/stronger assailant anything short of him falling to the ground spread eagle should be viewed suspiciously.
Then what is the issue with the old record being out there? If Europeans are as eager to forgive and forget past crimes as you suggest, then they won't hold it against someone and no harm is caused.
The point is to determine if each request is covered by the law. The problem is that the requests they get are not individually approved by a court, that would make it too easy. Instead, they HAVE to be the judge of which requests are covered by the law.
Personally, I think this is a BS law. If something is legally present on web, ie. a ten year old news story, then it should be index-able. However, if there a a factual problem, or contains private information, then the site owners should be required to correct it or take it down. The idea of going after the index is ridiculous, not effective and lazy.