Because the federal congresscritters think that every issue is one they need to fix. Despite the current divisions between the US political parties, the one thing they agree on is that building and maintaining national power and control is a common goal. They actively seek out "problems" which they can give themselves more authority over.
They're talking about conduit, not actual fiber. You apparently didn't read more than the first two sentences, because those conduits would be empty, but make it easier to run fiber in the future.
And, IMHO, it's an issue for the states, not the feds. Communications which enables Interstate Commerce is not itself Interstate Commerce.
What income? He had x bitcoin 5 years ago, he has x bitcoin today. No bitcoins incoming, there was no income.
That's the fact, but I know it's not the way it works. The way it's intended to work is while a taxpayer owns something of value, the Federal Reserve diligently works to inflate dollars, making that something "worth" more in the future. The government then demands a tax payment because inflation caused that something to cost more in dollars. Oh! Capital gains! Pay up!
The government's argument is that the passcode itself is not incriminatory. It's the protected contents which may be, and the person is not being asked to directly disclose those. But that ignores that showing the ability to access the files may itself be incriminatory.
Anyway, his passcode is "1Admit1'mGuiltyAsH3ll.", so disclosing it would be self-incrimination.
I agree, it's contempt of court. As well it should be, since the court is contemptible. The right against self-incrimination is absolute - you don't have to testify against yourself, you don't have to unlock that (combination) safe, you don't have to decrypt files. You have the right to remain silent.
That is, unless it's the physical key to a safe, or some hardware encryption key. That's physical, and subject to seizure. But a combination or encryption password is a product of the mind, and forcing it out is forcing self-incrimination.
Sure, law enforcement has a right, with the proper warrant, to break into the safe or attempt to decrypt the contents themselves, but failing that, they're simply SOL.
Uh, the 4th applies the the US government, not individuals or foreign governments. Taking the emails was certainly illegal, as was Daniel Ellsberg taking the Pentagon Papers or Snowden the NSA files. But that doesn't make them "poison fruit," and is certainly not comparable to the classified material in the examples I gave.
"the accusation is that Russia influenced the election through the slow release of hacked emails"
The press is just miffed that they didn't find it and disclose it first. Really, if the DNC hadn't worked to sway the primaries against Sanders, and CNN employee Brazile hadn't violated journalistic ethics by leaking debate questions to HRC and then lying about it, there wouldn't have been much fire beneath the smoke. Pointing to the Russians or Wikileaks is just an attempt at misdirection by blaming the messenger for revealing things the media would have been praised for revealing.
Oh, and HRC flat-out lied about Bengazi, first by telling the public and families of those killed that it was an unpredictable violent protest over a video while privately admitting to a planned and foreseeable terrorist attack.
I'm not familiar with NZ tax laws, but in the US one can take an income tax deduction for sales taxes paid. So it can make a difference whether the tax is paid by the consumer or the retailer/manufacturer.
If the law was intended to treat shipping and transportation as the same thing, then the law could have been written both unambiguously and with no Oxford comma:
...storing, packing for shipment or shipment of...
If shipment and distribution are two different things, it's hard to believe the law was written to have a different effect on "packing for shipment" (covered by the law) and "packing for distribution" (not covered) or between "shipment" (not covered) and "distribution" (covered).
"...packing for (shipment or distribution)..." is the only logical reading.
"shipment and distribution are one and the same thing."
No, they're not. Trucking goods from a manufacturer's plant to their own warehouse is shipping, but not distribution in a legal sense. Distribution occurs when there's a change of hands. At a roadside farm stand, there's distribution, but no shipping.
The law uses both terms, the difference is meaningful or they would be redundant. "Distribution" in law isn't just "driving things to the places to which they are distributed." The term also covers any change of hands - many drug laws prohibit "distribution," to cover exchanges with or without remuneration.
The law covers agricultural products. Those sold at a farm stand are being distributed (sold), but not shipped (they're sold at the site of origination). Those being trucked from a plant to the same company's warehouse are being shipped, but not distributed. And, packaging may differ for distribution (e.g. retail packaging) and shipping (e.g. case packs, palletizing). So, packaging for (distribution or shipping) is a perfectly logical clause, as they can be completely different things.
I'm pretty sure the transfer of Coulombs was the basis for the very first work with electricity. Describing the source and destination isn't a legitimate subject for patent.
"The debt ceiling only matters when there is a Democrat in the White House."
It matters both ways. There are a significant number of Republicans who support fiscal restraint. Rand Paul is a recently visible part of that faction. I can't think of a single Democrat, though. But overall the R's and D's aren't that different, they're both working on building power over individuals It's just what they want to use that power for which differs.
I have no problem cutting programs which are peripheral to core government. But I want that to be accompanied with tax cuts, which allows those who wish to support specific programs to "vote with their dollars." I tend toward libertarian, but I could support delegation of federal taxes - let people assign, say, 25% of their tax dollars to specific budget categories. No tyranny of the majority, let people support government/social programs of their choice.
But this whole Trump/McCain build up the military is bullshit. We already spend more money on our military than the next 8 countries combined. And, our only non-oceanic borders are not of military concern. Take out Kim, stop messing in other country's shit, and we can move the budget from military penis extension programs to debt payment. Trump claims the art of the deal. Great. Use it to negotiate more military for less cost.
"The DOJ did not say the videos were illegal. The DOJ ordered UC Berkeley to make them compliant with ADA standards."
I can understand your confusion. You're not a native speaker of English, so you think there's a difference between doing something illegal and not complying with a law. There isn't. HTH.
And yet, that's exactly what the ADA does - make some public speech illegal unless accompanied by government mandated speech. And that's exactly why the videos were removed, because the US DOJ said they were illegal under the ADA.
Perhaps you're using a TTS reader, because it's obvious you can't really read.
In addition, his multiple references to "younger generation" sure sounds like age discrimination. It makes me believe that instead of hiring people with the skillset needed, he's just hiring low-cost, inexperienced help.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why is the federal government involved?"
Because the federal congresscritters think that every issue is one they need to fix. Despite the current divisions between the US political parties, the one thing they agree on is that building and maintaining national power and control is a common goal. They actively seek out "problems" which they can give themselves more authority over.
They're talking about conduit, not actual fiber. You apparently didn't read more than the first two sentences, because those conduits would be empty, but make it easier to run fiber in the future.
And, IMHO, it's an issue for the states, not the feds. Communications which enables Interstate Commerce is not itself Interstate Commerce.
NASA is needed to confirm that the soon-to-be Make America Great Wall is visible from space, just like the commie Great Wall of China.
"the new assistant will use artificial intelligence to enable users to do everything that is possible to do by touch"
So, every phone comes with a virtual hooker?
"not pay taxes on the source of the income"
What income? He had x bitcoin 5 years ago, he has x bitcoin today. No bitcoins incoming, there was no income.
That's the fact, but I know it's not the way it works. The way it's intended to work is while a taxpayer owns something of value, the Federal Reserve diligently works to inflate dollars, making that something "worth" more in the future. The government then demands a tax payment because inflation caused that something to cost more in dollars. Oh! Capital gains! Pay up!
The government's argument is that the passcode itself is not incriminatory. It's the protected contents which may be, and the person is not being asked to directly disclose those. But that ignores that showing the ability to access the files may itself be incriminatory.
Anyway, his passcode is "1Admit1'mGuiltyAsH3ll.", so disclosing it would be self-incrimination.
I agree, it's contempt of court. As well it should be, since the court is contemptible. The right against self-incrimination is absolute - you don't have to testify against yourself, you don't have to unlock that (combination) safe, you don't have to decrypt files. You have the right to remain silent.
That is, unless it's the physical key to a safe, or some hardware encryption key. That's physical, and subject to seizure. But a combination or encryption password is a product of the mind, and forcing it out is forcing self-incrimination.
Sure, law enforcement has a right, with the proper warrant, to break into the safe or attempt to decrypt the contents themselves, but failing that, they're simply SOL.
Uh, the 4th applies the the US government, not individuals or foreign governments. Taking the emails was certainly illegal, as was Daniel Ellsberg taking the Pentagon Papers or Snowden the NSA files. But that doesn't make them "poison fruit," and is certainly not comparable to the classified material in the examples I gave.
"the accusation is that Russia influenced the election through the slow release of hacked emails"
The press is just miffed that they didn't find it and disclose it first. Really, if the DNC hadn't worked to sway the primaries against Sanders, and CNN employee Brazile hadn't violated journalistic ethics by leaking debate questions to HRC and then lying about it, there wouldn't have been much fire beneath the smoke. Pointing to the Russians or Wikileaks is just an attempt at misdirection by blaming the messenger for revealing things the media would have been praised for revealing.
Oh, and HRC flat-out lied about Bengazi, first by telling the public and families of those killed that it was an unpredictable violent protest over a video while privately admitting to a planned and foreseeable terrorist attack.
"The man who interfered with the election is accusing Russia of interfering with the election?"
...and is reported by the US media, who also sought to influence the election.
"What is the difference?"
I'm not familiar with NZ tax laws, but in the US one can take an income tax deduction for sales taxes paid. So it can make a difference whether the tax is paid by the consumer or the retailer/manufacturer.
"Apple almost certainly paid sales tax."
It seems that NZ GST, although collected by the seller, is considered to be paid by the consumer.
"Almost every manufacturer "
Guess what? Laws are written to cover all manufacturers, not "almost every" one.
If shipment and distribution are two different things, it's hard to believe the law was written to have a different effect on "packing for shipment" (covered by the law) and "packing for distribution" (not covered) or between "shipment" (not covered) and "distribution" (covered).
"...packing for (shipment or distribution)..." is the only logical reading.
"shipment and distribution are one and the same thing."
No, they're not. Trucking goods from a manufacturer's plant to their own warehouse is shipping, but not distribution in a legal sense. Distribution occurs when there's a change of hands. At a roadside farm stand, there's distribution, but no shipping.
"Shipment IS part of distribution"
The law uses both terms, the difference is meaningful or they would be redundant. "Distribution" in law isn't just "driving things to the places to which they are distributed." The term also covers any change of hands - many drug laws prohibit "distribution," to cover exchanges with or without remuneration.
The law covers agricultural products. Those sold at a farm stand are being distributed (sold), but not shipped (they're sold at the site of origination). Those being trucked from a plant to the same company's warehouse are being shipped, but not distributed. And, packaging may differ for distribution (e.g. retail packaging) and shipping (e.g. case packs, palletizing). So, packaging for (distribution or shipping) is a perfectly logical clause, as they can be completely different things.
I'm pretty sure the transfer of Coulombs was the basis for the very first work with electricity. Describing the source and destination isn't a legitimate subject for patent.
"The debt ceiling only matters when there is a Democrat in the White House."
It matters both ways. There are a significant number of Republicans who support fiscal restraint. Rand Paul is a recently visible part of that faction. I can't think of a single Democrat, though. But overall the R's and D's aren't that different, they're both working on building power over individuals It's just what they want to use that power for which differs.
I have no problem cutting programs which are peripheral to core government. But I want that to be accompanied with tax cuts, which allows those who wish to support specific programs to "vote with their dollars." I tend toward libertarian, but I could support delegation of federal taxes - let people assign, say, 25% of their tax dollars to specific budget categories. No tyranny of the majority, let people support government/social programs of their choice.
But this whole Trump/McCain build up the military is bullshit. We already spend more money on our military than the next 8 countries combined. And, our only non-oceanic borders are not of military concern. Take out Kim, stop messing in other country's shit, and we can move the budget from military penis extension programs to debt payment. Trump claims the art of the deal. Great. Use it to negotiate more military for less cost.
strumming on the 'ole banjo?
Welcome to Patents 3.0.
Now, instead of patenting "X, but with a computer", they can take all those old patents and create new "X, but with a phone" ones. Hurray!
"The DOJ did not say the videos were illegal. The DOJ ordered UC Berkeley to make them compliant with ADA standards."
I can understand your confusion. You're not a native speaker of English, so you think there's a difference between doing something illegal and not complying with a law. There isn't. HTH.
And yet, that's exactly what the ADA does - make some public speech illegal unless accompanied by government mandated speech. And that's exactly why the videos were removed, because the US DOJ said they were illegal under the ADA.
Perhaps you're using a TTS reader, because it's obvious you can't really read.
"What was allegedly illegal was UC failing to make the content accessible under the terms of the ADA."
The ADA coerces speech, which is just as much a free speech violation as is restricting speech.
In addition, his multiple references to "younger generation" sure sounds like age discrimination. It makes me believe that instead of hiring people with the skillset needed, he's just hiring low-cost, inexperienced help.
Kibo called it almost 20 years ago.