Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."
Had Batt not credited "Cage", Riddle himself suggests that he would not have had a case. In other words, it is Batt's intent to quote Cage that was the violation, not the silence itself.
Mobiles are under title 4, and carriers already have multiple speed (fast lane) tiers.
Speed tiers are NOT what Net Neutrality advocates are talking about when they refer to "fast lanes". When you purchase faster internet service, that speed applies to every bit that comes through the pipe. Fast lanes are about giving some bits priority over others based on source and content. Think Comcast slowing Netflix content because it competes with their own streaming service, or Century Link throttling Skype to give their own videocom service a competitive advantage.
Something along the lines of: Businesses who choose to violate net neutrality will not be granted license to do business in the state of California. Want to do business there? Follow the rules they have.
You have to say who you are when you vote. If you want to vote under someone else's name, you have to know that they haven't voted, and that they aren't going to. You'd better believe if someone is turned away because someone falsely voted under their name, we'd hear about it. But it simply doesn't happen. The effort required and the risk are just too great for the meager benefit of getting a second vote.
That's all fine and dandy, but what does it have to do with the point I was responding to? Some AC literally stated that people like him have become climate change deniers explicitly because of news articles being critical of Trump. That has nothing to do with questions about the data like the one you present.
If the data is invalid, that's fine - throw it out. If you just want to throw it out because it is presented in a manner that hurts your feelings, you're a triggered snowflake.
How are you so sure that those black churches aren't just taking their members to the appropriate polling places? And what makes you so sure that only black churches do it?
For fuck's sake. The amount of personal effort involved in voting illegally so far outweighs the potential personal benefit that this is a waste of time that creates more of a problem than it solves. In person voter fraud is next to non-existent. But voter ID laws depress turnout, and typically are implemented in a way that disproportionately affects minorities and the elderly.
How does his claim legitimize actual Russian involvement in last year's election? "We knew they were going to do this, so we were right to do it first!"
What makes you think they are deflecting from communism - which no longer exists in any real sense, even as an aspirational manner, outside of North Korea - rather than critiquing fascism - which is a movement that has never gone away, and poses a real threat to liberal democracies across the globe? I don't see anyone with any sort of influence or power calling for anything more socialist than universal healthcare and progressive taxation. I do see a large number of people with influence and in power advocating fascist means and ends.
There are scientists whose entire role in the process is to do everything possible to break the work in these papers. And if they can disprove something that got through the process before, it can make a huge difference in their careers. When they succeed in doing so, the results are published. So, if you stay up to date with the literature, you'll read when previous papers are debunked. If you don't, you risk building on bad science, and your science will be found to be bad itself.
Only if they commit a criminal offense, like theft or assault. Not if they only commit a civil offense, like speeding or overstaying a visa.
It is a violation of law, and that is what the common term "criminal" means.
No, it is not. The precise legal meaning is the same as the common meaning. People who speed are not criminals. People who litter are not criminals. People who don't keep their sidewalks clear of snow are not criminals. People who overstay their visas are not criminals.
20 minutes to get in and an hour for a bed - that's the long wait times that are the supposed downfall of the Canadian system? You're lucky to get in within an hour here, and it could be hours before you get a bed - if they don't "stabilize" you and kick you out first, leaving you thousands of dollars in debt for your trouble.
It prevents a criminal from getting another chance to break immigration law by overstaying his visa again.
Someone who overstays their visa is not a criminal. Overstaying ones visa is a civil offense, not a criminal one. As for the rest of your argument, it is my opinion that the cost in money and freedom is not worth the incredibly tiny gain to be had.
If they're leaving, why not just let them leave on their own rather than go through the expense of detaining them and going through the whole deportation process? What is to be gained?
If there's law to support enacting the rules (like, for example, the Telecom Act of 1934), and it passes legal muster (like, for example, being upheld by a federal appeals court in 2015), then I don't see why further legislation is necessary.
While the ACA did indeed mandate features that were beyond some bare-bones plans that were already in existence, those plans were grandfathered in for people who already had them. The reason people didn't get to keep (some of) them was that the insurance companies stopped offering them. Obama made a promise that was beyond his power to keep, but he didn't lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Having seen "Cage" on the sleeve (and "John Cage" on relevant documentation), says Riddle, "from our point of view they had established that they intended this to be a performance of - or at least a quotation from! - 4'33", not just borrowing Cage's creative idea, which it is difficult to regard as copyright under British law, but actually purporting to have recorded that work."
Had Batt not credited "Cage", Riddle himself suggests that he would not have had a case. In other words, it is Batt's intent to quote Cage that was the violation, not the silence itself.
Mobiles are under title 4, and carriers already have multiple speed (fast lane) tiers.
Speed tiers are NOT what Net Neutrality advocates are talking about when they refer to "fast lanes". When you purchase faster internet service, that speed applies to every bit that comes through the pipe. Fast lanes are about giving some bits priority over others based on source and content. Think Comcast slowing Netflix content because it competes with their own streaming service, or Century Link throttling Skype to give their own videocom service a competitive advantage.
But there is no federal law forbidding states from implementing their own net neutrality rules. That was conjured from whole cloth by Pai et all.
Something along the lines of: Businesses who choose to violate net neutrality will not be granted license to do business in the state of California. Want to do business there? Follow the rules they have.
You have to say who you are when you vote. If you want to vote under someone else's name, you have to know that they haven't voted, and that they aren't going to. You'd better believe if someone is turned away because someone falsely voted under their name, we'd hear about it. But it simply doesn't happen. The effort required and the risk are just too great for the meager benefit of getting a second vote.
That's all fine and dandy, but what does it have to do with the point I was responding to? Some AC literally stated that people like him have become climate change deniers explicitly because of news articles being critical of Trump. That has nothing to do with questions about the data like the one you present.
If the data is invalid, that's fine - throw it out. If you just want to throw it out because it is presented in a manner that hurts your feelings, you're a triggered snowflake.
How are you so sure that those black churches aren't just taking their members to the appropriate polling places? And what makes you so sure that only black churches do it?
For fuck's sake. The amount of personal effort involved in voting illegally so far outweighs the potential personal benefit that this is a waste of time that creates more of a problem than it solves. In person voter fraud is next to non-existent. But voter ID laws depress turnout, and typically are implemented in a way that disproportionately affects minorities and the elderly.
Which is why it's important to keep the paper. Then you can have people verify the count under supervision.
I read the first paragraph of the article - right up to where it berated our President and then I stopped.
Every article about climate change is framed that way. And it's why us deplorables become climate change "deniers".
Someone is mean to Trump, so you're going to throw the data out the window? That's ... an interesting approach to assessing the situation.
How does his claim legitimize actual Russian involvement in last year's election? "We knew they were going to do this, so we were right to do it first!"
"Canadian" is a nationality, not an ideology. "Nazi" is an ideology - all you have to do to be one is to believe in the same ideas.
What makes you think they are deflecting from communism - which no longer exists in any real sense, even as an aspirational manner, outside of North Korea - rather than critiquing fascism - which is a movement that has never gone away, and poses a real threat to liberal democracies across the globe? I don't see anyone with any sort of influence or power calling for anything more socialist than universal healthcare and progressive taxation. I do see a large number of people with influence and in power advocating fascist means and ends.
There are scientists whose entire role in the process is to do everything possible to break the work in these papers. And if they can disprove something that got through the process before, it can make a huge difference in their careers. When they succeed in doing so, the results are published. So, if you stay up to date with the literature, you'll read when previous papers are debunked. If you don't, you risk building on bad science, and your science will be found to be bad itself.
Someone who breaks the law is a criminal.
Only if they commit a criminal offense, like theft or assault. Not if they only commit a civil offense, like speeding or overstaying a visa.
It is a violation of law, and that is what the common term "criminal" means.
No, it is not. The precise legal meaning is the same as the common meaning. People who speed are not criminals. People who litter are not criminals. People who don't keep their sidewalks clear of snow are not criminals. People who overstay their visas are not criminals.
20 minutes to get in and an hour for a bed - that's the long wait times that are the supposed downfall of the Canadian system? You're lucky to get in within an hour here, and it could be hours before you get a bed - if they don't "stabilize" you and kick you out first, leaving you thousands of dollars in debt for your trouble.
BINGO! There gain to be had from this is minuscule, but at least it's expensive, and can be used to invade our privacy!
It prevents a criminal from getting another chance to break immigration law by overstaying his visa again.
Someone who overstays their visa is not a criminal. Overstaying ones visa is a civil offense, not a criminal one. As for the rest of your argument, it is my opinion that the cost in money and freedom is not worth the incredibly tiny gain to be had.
These aren't the ones we want to catch.
They broke the law. Why shouldn't we want to catch them?
Because doing so is expensive, and using this technology degrades the privacy of citizens and foreign nationals who are here legally?
If they're leaving, why not just let them leave on their own rather than go through the expense of detaining them and going through the whole deportation process? What is to be gained?
If there's law to support enacting the rules (like, for example, the Telecom Act of 1934), and it passes legal muster (like, for example, being upheld by a federal appeals court in 2015), then I don't see why further legislation is necessary.
That was always, at best, "It just works - as long as you only want to do what we let you do."
That's the narrative that the dems are trying to get people to believe.
And yet, even though it's true, there are plenty of idiots who don't believe it.
While the ACA did indeed mandate features that were beyond some bare-bones plans that were already in existence, those plans were grandfathered in for people who already had them. The reason people didn't get to keep (some of) them was that the insurance companies stopped offering them. Obama made a promise that was beyond his power to keep, but he didn't lie.