No, you really can't. You just don't know it because you can't see what you're doing. Ask the person behind you how you're doing. The answer will, apparently, surprise you.
The person driving below the speed limit and slowly drifting out of their lane is chatting on their phone. The one driving below the speed limit and weaving all over the place is texting. Or very drunk.
It's not physically possible to drive safely while texting. Too much time with your eyes off the road, too much attention on the phone. The instant you start manipulating your phone, you change direction. It's physiological - you start to turn in the direction of your focus. It can't be avoided or safely corrected for.
No, you really really can't. You just don't know it because you can't see what you're doing. Ask a person driving behind you how well you're driving. The answer will apparently shock you.
I see it all too often. The car driving under the speed limit slowly drifting out of its lane is driven by someone chatting on their phone. The one below the speed limit weaving all over the place is a texter. Or very drunk. The person on their phone driving safely and consistently, well, they don't exist.
There have been more than a few times that this would have been handy for me. Much much better than what I had to do before, which was going to different network and station websites to find their schedules.
Well, then I guess the FBI, DEA, and most large municipal police departments are guilty of drug trafficking. The ATF is clearly guilty of gun running and bootlegging as well. After all, they possess contraband, they move it from place to place, and sometimes they even pretend to sell it. Who cares if they do so in perfectly legal undercover operations, or they are holding it as evidence for an upcoming trial? They have it, they must be guilty. Even if the law explicitly permits all such activity.
If you're going to attack my logic, you should first make sure your premises are correct and complete. Check to see if you're overlooking centuries of judicial precedent or vast swathes of the legal code. It would also be worth your time to read a little more carefully so you don't infer what was never implied or lose track of the referenced subjects and objects.
What exactly is your point? That the FBI are pedophiles? That child pornography charges are sometimes misused by corrupt officials or unfairly pursued by overzealous prosecutors?
What do you want to do about it? Strike down every law that might be misused? Decriminalize child pornography because someone might be erroneously accused? Legalize rape so nobody can have their reputation tarnished by false charges?
We're talking about a site that catered exclusively to pedophiles being turned into a honeypot with which to catch them. Legal technicalities aside, it's a perfectly sensible approach to taking down child trafficking rings.
That part doesn't bother me in the slightest. For one, they didn't produce the content, they seized it. Second, it was a sting operation not a business. I have no problem with properly conducted stings. It was too late to prevent those children from coming to harm, but not too late for others so it makes sense to turn the product of a criminal network into a weapon against it.
I just wish they had been more careful and thorough with the warrant.
Leaving aside the ridiculous anti-semitism: Yes it would, you can't outlaw something without passing a law against it. It's in the word. Then the Court would have to uphold the law when it is inevitably brought to them. Which it would not do. So far, it has overturned such laws or restricted the definition of obscenity.
Porn is not necessarily obscene. Obscenity is an entirely subjective concept that has been vexing the Court for decades ("I know it when I see it"). Last definition I know of was “patently offensive hard core sexual conduct”, and that begins with a patently subjective term. There's a "community standards" test, but so far the Court has ruled against laws applying them to the internet. They haven't ruled specifically on the matter yet, deciding instead on technical points.
Long story short, while the Court allows some restriction of obscenity, it doesn't really like the concept of obscenity or restrictions on speech in general.
No, that's what they do if they misread Keynes. His theory was that the government can shore up the economy by increasing spending to replace falling consumer demand, but it's been twisted around, leaving out everything but "increase spending during a recession". Having forgotten the key point that it is consumption that needs to be increased, well intentioned but incorrect legislators start to think that any spending will do; or worse, that the government needs to increase supply and demand labor. Not only does this not help the situation, it can prolong or even worsen a recession.
In a recession people don't need to be given jobs in research or highway construction. That doesn't solve anything - it's two too small sectors of the economy with restrictions on who can provide the labor (one has high qualification requirements, the other has skill and physical requirements). People need to keep the jobs they have. There isn't time to retrain IT workers as road workers or put retail salespeople through grad school.
Besides, using infrastructure projects to boost an economy has been tried elsewhere. The usual outcome is wide stretches of pristine highways and beautiful new facilities, all unused because the labor force is tied up building the highways instead of engaging in the commerce the infrastructure is meant to facilitate. Truck drivers too busy building roads to use them and so forth.
It's not like we've been through an unusually long recession or anything else that might lead Congress to tighten the strings on discretionary spending.
If it was just his picture or logo on a t-shirt, you'd be right. But as he's adding elements for the purpose of parody/satire, the plaintiff is a prominent public and political figure, and there is no "likelihood of confusion" whatsoever; it's very unlikely the suit will be successful.
Did I mix up copyrights and trademarks again? It happens sometimes.
Still, the parody/satire exceptions (fair use) apply.
From the American Bar Association: "The fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism or comment is
not an infringement of copyright." (https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf)
And if you're thinking "that's still copyrights you jerk", it still applies. "Many courts have applied the traditional likelihood of confusion test to parodies. Even though parody is not a defense to a claim of trademark infringement, courts have noted in the context of the likelihood of confusion test (either as a separate factor or in relation to the other factors) that a successful parody will rarely be considered infringing," Since nobody is going to think the shirts are from the Sanders campaign, and the defendant isn't running for president and trying to trick Sanders supporters into voting for him instead, the suit will fail.
OH! Not as funny as your other answer, but it does clear things up for me. Sort of. Now I'm just left with the mystery of who or what he thinks the PTB are. Is he really suggesting that the planet is run by Time Lords ("regeneration period") with a penchant for cannibal voyeurism? On it's own, an odd fetish; for a fictional alien race, even stranger.
So, not the industrial vacuum pump repair/refurb company then? I guess not, "The PTB Sales" doesn't really fit grammatically with the rest of the comment. Of all the acronyms Google came back with, the German meteorologist group is the only one that does fit, but I thought Germany solved it's cannibalism problems.
And it has a logo? Seems rather un-Bernie. As does the suit. It's also unsustainable, parodying the likeness of a Presidential candidate is protected speech.
Who the hell washes their hands with viruses instead of soap? If you just washed your hands, what are you going to spread? If the water is so bacteria-laden that you're going to spread them even after using soap, you and everyone else in the room have a lot more to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, it's not a violation of the 4th. It's also not the school's job. It has no business monitoring the feeds of it's students.
nor the duty to be monitoring student social media feeds. Unless of course it's a board/account/forum owned by the school.
The person driving below the speed limit and slowly drifting out of their lane is chatting on their phone. The one driving below the speed limit and weaving all over the place is texting. Or very drunk.
It's not physically possible to drive safely while texting. Too much time with your eyes off the road, too much attention on the phone. The instant you start manipulating your phone, you change direction. It's physiological - you start to turn in the direction of your focus. It can't be avoided or safely corrected for.
I see it all too often. The car driving under the speed limit slowly drifting out of its lane is driven by someone chatting on their phone. The one below the speed limit weaving all over the place is a texter. Or very drunk. The person on their phone driving safely and consistently, well, they don't exist.
There have been more than a few times that this would have been handy for me. Much much better than what I had to do before, which was going to different network and station websites to find their schedules.
Well, then I guess the FBI, DEA, and most large municipal police departments are guilty of drug trafficking. The ATF is clearly guilty of gun running and bootlegging as well. After all, they possess contraband, they move it from place to place, and sometimes they even pretend to sell it. Who cares if they do so in perfectly legal undercover operations, or they are holding it as evidence for an upcoming trial? They have it, they must be guilty. Even if the law explicitly permits all such activity.
If you're going to attack my logic, you should first make sure your premises are correct and complete. Check to see if you're overlooking centuries of judicial precedent or vast swathes of the legal code. It would also be worth your time to read a little more carefully so you don't infer what was never implied or lose track of the referenced subjects and objects.
What do you want to do about it? Strike down every law that might be misused? Decriminalize child pornography because someone might be erroneously accused? Legalize rape so nobody can have their reputation tarnished by false charges?
We're talking about a site that catered exclusively to pedophiles being turned into a honeypot with which to catch them. Legal technicalities aside, it's a perfectly sensible approach to taking down child trafficking rings.
By your logic it would be wrong to use the images as evidence at trial. An equally absurd proposition.
I just wish they had been more careful and thorough with the warrant.
As for liability, it hardly matters if the accused was never within a thousand miles of the child if they paid someone else to do it.
Leaving aside the ridiculous anti-semitism: Yes it would, you can't outlaw something without passing a law against it. It's in the word. Then the Court would have to uphold the law when it is inevitably brought to them. Which it would not do. So far, it has overturned such laws or restricted the definition of obscenity.
Long story short, while the Court allows some restriction of obscenity, it doesn't really like the concept of obscenity or restrictions on speech in general.
There's a neat writeup on it here: http://www.firstamendmentcente...
In a recession people don't need to be given jobs in research or highway construction. That doesn't solve anything - it's two too small sectors of the economy with restrictions on who can provide the labor (one has high qualification requirements, the other has skill and physical requirements). People need to keep the jobs they have. There isn't time to retrain IT workers as road workers or put retail salespeople through grad school.
Besides, using infrastructure projects to boost an economy has been tried elsewhere. The usual outcome is wide stretches of pristine highways and beautiful new facilities, all unused because the labor force is tied up building the highways instead of engaging in the commerce the infrastructure is meant to facilitate. Truck drivers too busy building roads to use them and so forth.
For the same reason he can't actually do anything about pornography. The 1st Amendment.
It's not like we've been through an unusually long recession or anything else that might lead Congress to tighten the strings on discretionary spending.
If that had something to do with how the Federal budget is drawn up, you'd have a point.
If it was just his picture or logo on a t-shirt, you'd be right. But as he's adding elements for the purpose of parody/satire, the plaintiff is a prominent public and political figure, and there is no "likelihood of confusion" whatsoever; it's very unlikely the suit will be successful.
Still, the parody/satire exceptions (fair use) apply.
From the American Bar Association: "The fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism or comment is not an infringement of copyright." (https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf)
And if you're thinking "that's still copyrights you jerk", it still applies. "Many courts have applied the traditional likelihood of confusion test to parodies. Even though parody is not a defense to a claim of trademark infringement, courts have noted in the context of the likelihood of confusion test (either as a separate factor or in relation to the other factors) that a successful parody will rarely be considered infringing," Since nobody is going to think the shirts are from the Sanders campaign, and the defendant isn't running for president and trying to trick Sanders supporters into voting for him instead, the suit will fail.
OH! Not as funny as your other answer, but it does clear things up for me. Sort of. Now I'm just left with the mystery of who or what he thinks the PTB are. Is he really suggesting that the planet is run by Time Lords ("regeneration period") with a penchant for cannibal voyeurism? On it's own, an odd fetish; for a fictional alien race, even stranger.
For example, I'm pretty sure they stopped supporting my old iPhone4 (OS updates) after 2 years. Same for my old iPad.
The "It's Bloody Cold Here" is a much better name for a North Seas research vessel.
So, not the industrial vacuum pump repair/refurb company then? I guess not, "The PTB Sales" doesn't really fit grammatically with the rest of the comment. Of all the acronyms Google came back with, the German meteorologist group is the only one that does fit, but I thought Germany solved it's cannibalism problems.
It's parody. A common exception to copyright protections.
And it has a logo? Seems rather un-Bernie. As does the suit. It's also unsustainable, parodying the likeness of a Presidential candidate is protected speech.
Who the hell washes their hands with viruses instead of soap? If you just washed your hands, what are you going to spread? If the water is so bacteria-laden that you're going to spread them even after using soap, you and everyone else in the room have a lot more to worry about.