There are examples of civil disobedience bringing about change. Women's suffrage and civil rights are good examples. But many, many more changes have been brought about by working within the system than by working against it.
Compare the Tea Party movement to Occupy. I'm not saying one movement is good and the other is evil, just that they both raised awareness of their adherents' respective positions.
Two warnings were issued to Sansai Books by three industry organizations, including the Japan Video Software Association, protesting the sale of the guidebook, but the publisher continued to offer the product.
There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.
these studies conclude that killing or capturing terrorist leaders can reduce the effectiveness of terrorist groups or even cause terrorist organizations to disintegrate
The studies conclude that killing the leaders of terrorist groups hurts the groups.
UAVs are one tool available, as are Special Forces, and traditional military force. I suppose the conclusion of the headline is correct though, UAVs are an effective weapon. Who knew?
No, I didn't forget that. If it's a standard that requires the use of patented technology then FRAND applies; yes that requires opt-in but that's not the point. The point is that once it's a standard you have to follow the rules. Google's point (as I read it) is that if competing in the market requires use of patented technology then the technology should be available whether the requirement is because of a codified standard or a de facto standard. Apple still makes money off their patent, they just can't force competitors out of the marketplace with expensive lawsuits.
Google's argument actually makes sense. As I read it, they're saying that a company which holds a patent on technology that is essential to meet an industry standard must license it in a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) way. But a company that has such a strong market position (i.e. a monopoly) can use patents to exclude competition. So Google is saying that FRAND should apply whether the technology is required because of an industry standard or because the patent holder has a monopoly.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights never gave you free reign to do whatever you want. You still (generally) have to obey the law. In this case the judge agreed that his right to express his views overrode the public decency law. It's always a trade-off. But if your actions take away other peoples' rights (by trespassing, blocking streets, etc.) your rights will probably come in second place to those of the people you have wronged. Don't hold your breath expecting a secession.
There's no hint at what makes a teacher "elite", but he promises lots of cash after the election. He promised a transparent administration and this is the most transparent attempt to buy votes ever.
Google decided a long time ago who they support and who they punish. For years they said they couldn't stop that bomb, but it was fixed days after Obama took office and the official bio was updated.
Not just phone conversations. This is about his own aides using PIM when they can't talk to him in person. I really doubt we want to get to the point where every word and grunt from elected official for his entire four years in office must be recorded.
He spent his entire life developing a unique skill in creating and performing music. If all they wanted was a fifteen minute studio session of crap sounds they could've bought a porn backtrack..
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
No, but we're talking about creative works here, not labor. If the company makes an improvement in the tractor that increases its usefulness they should benefit from the idea. A perfect example is the three point hitch which Harry Ferguson invented. It revolutionized how tractors were used.
There are many forms of democracy, representative republic being one of them. Your personal definition is another, but calling it the only "actual" is quite an exaggeration.
Slashdot Mirror
You should also thank Rep. William A. Steiger (R-WI) for authoring the bill and Richard Nixon for signing it into law.
People from South and Central American countries will get in your face if you say they're not Americans.
The authorities decided not to prosecute him
It sounds like that has already happened:
Japan's health ministry said on Sunday it would investigate the reports, Reuters reported.
Japanese law has set an annual radiation exposure safety threshold of 50 millisieverts for nuclear plant workers during normal operations.
I don't see anything in the linked articles which indicates there has been a decision to not prosecute him though. FUD headline.
There are examples of civil disobedience bringing about change. Women's suffrage and civil rights are good examples. But many, many more changes have been brought about by working within the system than by working against it.
Compare the Tea Party movement to Occupy. I'm not saying one movement is good and the other is evil, just that they both raised awareness of their adherents' respective positions.
That's why I qualified it with "usually". There are extreme situations.
Two warnings were issued to Sansai Books by three industry organizations, including the Japan Video Software Association, protesting the sale of the guidebook, but the publisher continued to offer the product.
There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.
FTA
these studies conclude that killing or capturing terrorist leaders can reduce the effectiveness of terrorist groups or even cause terrorist organizations to disintegrate
The studies conclude that killing the leaders of terrorist groups hurts the groups.
UAVs are one tool available, as are Special Forces, and traditional military force. I suppose the conclusion of the headline is correct though, UAVs are an effective weapon. Who knew?
You seem to have forgotten that FRAND is opt-in.
No, I didn't forget that. If it's a standard that requires the use of patented technology then FRAND applies; yes that requires opt-in but that's not the point. The point is that once it's a standard you have to follow the rules. Google's point (as I read it) is that if competing in the market requires use of patented technology then the technology should be available whether the requirement is because of a codified standard or a de facto standard. Apple still makes money off their patent, they just can't force competitors out of the marketplace with expensive lawsuits.
Google's argument actually makes sense. As I read it, they're saying that a company which holds a patent on technology that is essential to meet an industry standard must license it in a Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) way. But a company that has such a strong market position (i.e. a monopoly) can use patents to exclude competition. So Google is saying that FRAND should apply whether the technology is required because of an industry standard or because the patent holder has a monopoly.
What makes you think he doesn't care about those crimes too?
I doubt very much is on public land, there isn't a whole lot of public land in populated areas.
Even if you do find some easements it wouldn't mean anything; they lease the use of that land don't they?
The Constitution and Bill of Rights never gave you free reign to do whatever you want. You still (generally) have to obey the law. In this case the judge agreed that his right to express his views overrode the public decency law. It's always a trade-off. But if your actions take away other peoples' rights (by trespassing, blocking streets, etc.) your rights will probably come in second place to those of the people you have wronged. Don't hold your breath expecting a secession.
...if Google used a box with a lid that comes off easily, but not too easily.
Mad Magazine had this a long time ago. Pretty funny.
There's no hint at what makes a teacher "elite", but he promises lots of cash after the election. He promised a transparent administration and this is the most transparent attempt to buy votes ever.
Should judges that believe murder is wrong be disallowed from presiding over murder cases?
A better example would be if a black person murdered a white and the judge publicly stated that he thinks blacks are the enemy.
Popular vote for President is a bad idea for the same reason it was rejected over two hundred years ago.
Google decided a long time ago who they support and who they punish. For years they said they couldn't stop that bomb, but it was fixed days after Obama took office and the official bio was updated.
Not just phone conversations. This is about his own aides using PIM when they can't talk to him in person. I really doubt we want to get to the point where every word and grunt from elected official for his entire four years in office must be recorded.
He spent his entire life developing a unique skill in creating and performing music. If all they wanted was a fifteen minute studio session of crap sounds they could've bought a porn backtrack..
Do you think a tractor company should get "license" and charge royalties (however the amount) on the the food the tractor produces?
No, but we're talking about creative works here, not labor. If the company makes an improvement in the tractor that increases its usefulness they should benefit from the idea. A perfect example is the three point hitch which Harry Ferguson invented. It revolutionized how tractors were used.
Or use the same technique to make your golden retriever look sexy.
He said Anonymous, but al-Qaeda is a much better example. At least they know what they're fighting for.
There are many forms of democracy, representative republic being one of them. Your personal definition is another, but calling it the only "actual" is quite an exaggeration.