International judges would not say that, because the US didn't ratify it. All countries have to follow their own internal mechanisms to actually, legally join agreements.
Being against this treaty is not necessarily anti-science or even denying global warming; it could be opposition to particular parts of the treaty, or thinking it tries to solve the problem the wrong way.
That's actually a myth. "Daesh" is just the Arabic version of "ISIS". The fact that it sort of sounds like a word they don't like isn't really a factor.
Tectonic plates are not a colonial concept, nor are geographical boundaries in human development. North America and South America reside on different plates, and should not be considered the same continent; digging a canal is not sufficient to divide one continent into two either. You're correct in that Eurasia should be considered one (very large) continent, but you're arguing against a statement I didn't make. You are wrong in that India is smaller than Europe, however.
Arguing that a tectonic plate-based continental model is "colonial" is the height of silliness. There should be six continents: Eurasia, North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. Saying that these differences have "no relation to reality" is, quite frankly, just stupid.
Insurance isn't a loan. If they are determining eligibility based on this, then they are violating the policy, but if they're setting insurance rates based on it, then they don't seem to be breaking any rules.
Incorrect. "America" is short for "The United States of America". "The Americas" (plural) refers to the continents North America and South America. If you'd like to refer to them individually, you'd need to actually write North America or South America. Note also that while much of Latin America teaches they are the same continent, this isn't true for any reasonable definition of the word.
Release of sexually explicit images without the consent of the person(s) depicted is not, at this point, Constitutionally-protected speech. Gawker did a lot of things *wrong*, but the judge - who probably has a lot more legal training than you do, and has heard the arguments - found that what the suit also had enough merit to succeed.
Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.
I agree with this so far.
I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.
Here's the thing: Thiel apparently did want to destroy Gawker, you're right. However, it wouldn't have been possible for him to do so if they weren't making more than their fair share of mistakes. They might not have had to file for bankruptcy if they had taken the trial seriously from the start - Nick Denton's (allegedly flippant) comment about probably not publishing the sex tape of a four year old didn't do them any favors, and neither did refusing the initial order to take the tape down. All throughout, they acted unrepentant.
More to the point - sex tapes are covered by additional laws relating to publication, while identities of government workers/operatives are not. Things that are in the "public interest" are okay, like telling people Anthony Weiner was sexting inappropriately, but publishing the images themselves would likely not have been. If Gawker had stuck to telling people that a sex tape exists, they would have been fine. That's the line we've drawn as a society. You can argue that they shouldn't be considered that different, but that's separate from this discussion.
I guess ultimately I'd say that Gawker got (partially) destroyed not because they made one mistake, but because they made a lot of them, flagrantly and without remorse until it was clear they would lose.
We can start by saying the ones that publish sex tapes without permission are not the good guys, and deal with other cases as they arise. Thiel was helping someone who had a legitimate grievance against Gawker get justice. It's not like he filed a bunch of illegitimate lawsuits to try to bankrupt them with legal fees.
Supermarkets shouldn't have to just deal with it; we should punish (but not execute, not sure where you're pulling that from, but it says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're replying to) shoplifters when we find them.
His friend was fine with it; it was an open marriage. I don't think Bollea's wife was okay with it, but I still have less respect for Gawker than I do for him.
The $140M wasn't just because of damages caused to him (although it did hurt his career, and he was well-paid at one point); it was also because Gawker refused a judge's order to take down the tape. Punitive damages are a thing, and judges tend to get mad when you don't listen to them.
People funding other people's lawsuits is an old practice, and it's very valuable. Without it, the ACLU wouldn't be able to help people sue in civil rights cases, for instance. There's no more possible damage to freedom of the press for this than there is for other lawsuits; if it's without merit, it won't get far, and if the case has merit, then we should celebrate justice happening. Gawker wasn't sued because of good reporting; they were sued because they broke the law and also defied a judge's order to take the tape down after the fact. This case sets no real precedent, and whining that Gawker got punished for breaking the law flagrantly and without remorse is just silly.
No, it doesn't show which laws it violates. Those laws specifically cover "any notice, statement, or advertisement" regarding the "sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination". Selecting who gets to see your ads doesn't mean your ads indicate any preference, limitation, or discrimination. The other referenced laws has "printing or publication of notices or advertisements indicating prohibited preference, limitation, specification or discrimination" as its conditions; again, as long as the ads themselves don't indicate any preference or limitation based on race/gender, you wouldn't be violating them. Furthermore, as long as the ads aren't about housing or job openings, neither of those laws would apply in the first place.
You could argue that excluding people from seeing your ads based on race or gender is discriminatory, but it wouldn't be covered by the laws in the summary.
No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.
Generally not quite true; you can't set traps expected to cause serious bodily injury. Discomfort (like something that smells terrible) is a deterrent but won't kill or maim, so in a lot of jurisdictions you'd be okay doing that.
And how do you plan on cutting something with a tarp between you and it? Moreover, if it's a nasty enough smell to penetrate gas masks, why do you think a tarp will protect you?
Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states and DC. If any third party gets above some level (5%?) of votes, they get funding in the next election cycle. Also, the top three candidates in the Electoral College are considered by the House if it comes to that.
You make a fair point, but Russia never really had a chance like the US to use nukes on civilians - that is, they were never the only ones to have them, especially during a major war. Russia did invade Eastern Europe for profit and politics. They were quite bad to their subjugated countries.
Having spoken to a few members of the German military myself, I think the opinions are mixed; most have no strong opinion, and some like/dislike them. I can see the Germans asking the US to leave in the next few decades, depending on how tensions with Russia are.
The bases initially were part of the unwanted occupation, but pretty shortly after that the West Germans actively wanted them there. And, of course, France wanted USAF bases as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Unreliable sources.
International judges would not say that, because the US didn't ratify it. All countries have to follow their own internal mechanisms to actually, legally join agreements.
If the POTUS didn't follow the internal mechanisms, then the US *didn't* ratify it, and thus, it's not part of the agreement. That's how things work.
Being against this treaty is not necessarily anti-science or even denying global warming; it could be opposition to particular parts of the treaty, or thinking it tries to solve the problem the wrong way.
Primary sources say otherwise; it is just an Arabic abbreviation of their name. It's not a pejorative.
That's actually a myth. "Daesh" is just the Arabic version of "ISIS". The fact that it sort of sounds like a word they don't like isn't really a factor.
Tectonic plates are not a colonial concept, nor are geographical boundaries in human development. North America and South America reside on different plates, and should not be considered the same continent; digging a canal is not sufficient to divide one continent into two either. You're correct in that Eurasia should be considered one (very large) continent, but you're arguing against a statement I didn't make. You are wrong in that India is smaller than Europe, however.
Arguing that a tectonic plate-based continental model is "colonial" is the height of silliness. There should be six continents: Eurasia, North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. Saying that these differences have "no relation to reality" is, quite frankly, just stupid.
It's hard for your driving record to set your premium when you're a new driver though.
Insurance isn't a loan. If they are determining eligibility based on this, then they are violating the policy, but if they're setting insurance rates based on it, then they don't seem to be breaking any rules.
Incorrect. "America" is short for "The United States of America". "The Americas" (plural) refers to the continents North America and South America. If you'd like to refer to them individually, you'd need to actually write North America or South America. Note also that while much of Latin America teaches they are the same continent, this isn't true for any reasonable definition of the word.
Release of sexually explicit images without the consent of the person(s) depicted is not, at this point, Constitutionally-protected speech. Gawker did a lot of things *wrong*, but the judge - who probably has a lot more legal training than you do, and has heard the arguments - found that what the suit also had enough merit to succeed.
Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.
I agree with this so far.
I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.
Here's the thing: Thiel apparently did want to destroy Gawker, you're right. However, it wouldn't have been possible for him to do so if they weren't making more than their fair share of mistakes. They might not have had to file for bankruptcy if they had taken the trial seriously from the start - Nick Denton's (allegedly flippant) comment about probably not publishing the sex tape of a four year old didn't do them any favors, and neither did refusing the initial order to take the tape down. All throughout, they acted unrepentant.
More to the point - sex tapes are covered by additional laws relating to publication, while identities of government workers/operatives are not. Things that are in the "public interest" are okay, like telling people Anthony Weiner was sexting inappropriately, but publishing the images themselves would likely not have been. If Gawker had stuck to telling people that a sex tape exists, they would have been fine. That's the line we've drawn as a society. You can argue that they shouldn't be considered that different, but that's separate from this discussion.
I guess ultimately I'd say that Gawker got (partially) destroyed not because they made one mistake, but because they made a lot of them, flagrantly and without remorse until it was clear they would lose.
Ha! Well, I can't say I agree with everything the ACLU does, but they have been useful and I'm glad they can help people who may need it.
We can start by saying the ones that publish sex tapes without permission are not the good guys, and deal with other cases as they arise. Thiel was helping someone who had a legitimate grievance against Gawker get justice. It's not like he filed a bunch of illegitimate lawsuits to try to bankrupt them with legal fees.
Supermarkets shouldn't have to just deal with it; we should punish (but not execute, not sure where you're pulling that from, but it says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're replying to) shoplifters when we find them.
His friend was fine with it; it was an open marriage. I don't think Bollea's wife was okay with it, but I still have less respect for Gawker than I do for him.
The $140M wasn't just because of damages caused to him (although it did hurt his career, and he was well-paid at one point); it was also because Gawker refused a judge's order to take down the tape. Punitive damages are a thing, and judges tend to get mad when you don't listen to them.
People funding other people's lawsuits is an old practice, and it's very valuable. Without it, the ACLU wouldn't be able to help people sue in civil rights cases, for instance. There's no more possible damage to freedom of the press for this than there is for other lawsuits; if it's without merit, it won't get far, and if the case has merit, then we should celebrate justice happening. Gawker wasn't sued because of good reporting; they were sued because they broke the law and also defied a judge's order to take the tape down after the fact. This case sets no real precedent, and whining that Gawker got punished for breaking the law flagrantly and without remorse is just silly.
No, it doesn't show which laws it violates. Those laws specifically cover "any notice, statement, or advertisement" regarding the "sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination". Selecting who gets to see your ads doesn't mean your ads indicate any preference, limitation, or discrimination. The other referenced laws has "printing or publication of notices or advertisements indicating prohibited preference, limitation, specification or discrimination" as its conditions; again, as long as the ads themselves don't indicate any preference or limitation based on race/gender, you wouldn't be violating them. Furthermore, as long as the ads aren't about housing or job openings, neither of those laws would apply in the first place.
You could argue that excluding people from seeing your ads based on race or gender is discriminatory, but it wouldn't be covered by the laws in the summary.
No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.
Generally not quite true; you can't set traps expected to cause serious bodily injury. Discomfort (like something that smells terrible) is a deterrent but won't kill or maim, so in a lot of jurisdictions you'd be okay doing that.
And how do you plan on cutting something with a tarp between you and it? Moreover, if it's a nasty enough smell to penetrate gas masks, why do you think a tarp will protect you?
Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states and DC. If any third party gets above some level (5%?) of votes, they get funding in the next election cycle. Also, the top three candidates in the Electoral College are considered by the House if it comes to that.
You make a fair point, but Russia never really had a chance like the US to use nukes on civilians - that is, they were never the only ones to have them, especially during a major war. Russia did invade Eastern Europe for profit and politics. They were quite bad to their subjugated countries.
Having spoken to a few members of the German military myself, I think the opinions are mixed; most have no strong opinion, and some like/dislike them. I can see the Germans asking the US to leave in the next few decades, depending on how tensions with Russia are.
The bases initially were part of the unwanted occupation, but pretty shortly after that the West Germans actively wanted them there. And, of course, France wanted USAF bases as well.
Oh yeah, West Germany hated having US military bases there. No reason for them to want additional protection at all.
Nice conspiracy theory you have there.