But the anti-vaxxers do harm others and that is not acceptable.
You see this argument a lot. What it leaves is the question of why you don't trust the vaccine you got? If someone has a suppressed immune system for whatever reason, then it really doesn't matter if they get vaccinated since it won't work. They should take special care to not put themselves in situations where they can catch something or protect themselves in other ways (such as masks and gloves). So again, either you trust the vaccine you get or you don't. Presenting that argument puts the onus on everyone else for the stupidity of a few.
On the other side, if someone gets a disease that a common vaccine exists for, then the treatment costs should be solely on the one who caught it. Insurance shouldn't have to pay for it.
I for one trust the vaccines I got so this is a non-issue for me.
Promoting the sale or use of streaming devices with KODI installed
(emphasis added). So it is against this policy to even describe how to do it. What this will do is kill the developers who use FB most notably the build developers.
They are acting like Firefox is the only workaround for getting to YouTube. There is, of course, Kodi which has a Kodi supported (in their repository) YouTube plugin. That is if YouTube is worth it these days. I haven't done anything on YouTube at all this year.
What career field do you suggest that does not require an Internet connection or cell phone?
Many jobs don't "require" either. Agriculture and animal husbandry are just two that come to my mind readily. Do they help? Yes, but they aren't required. Believe it or not, there was a time when there was no Internet and things still got done. Maybe a little harder. Maybe a little longer but it still got done.
1. Explain that people need homes, because it's very cold in the winter.
2. Explain that you need money to have homes.
3. Explain that there are lots of creative people who create content in order to make money. ("Artists")
4. Explain that they only make money if people pay them to create the content.
5. Explain that the people who pay them to create the content ("Producers") also need money to have homes.
6. Explain that the Producers will only have money to have homes if they can get paid for selling the content to people.
7. Explain that the only reason Producers can get paid for selling the content to people is because of copyright, since stuff is cheap to copy.
8. Turn this into a lesson about the evolution of text and music and art in history, the printing press and the phonograph and the camera, and how over time it became more and more accessible and cheaper to copy content.
9. Explain the Sony Betamax suit that those producers lost allowing people to "time shift" and how this is an extension of that same decision.
10. Explain the concepts of the public domain and why that is the sole reason for the existence of copyright.
11. Explain how those producers lobbied (read bribed) legislators to extend copyright to the point that nothing will be released to the public domain in his lifetime.
12. Explain that the DMCA was created by those same politicians in the same manor as the extensions to try and prevent format shifting.
13. Explain what the definition of greed is (on both sides of this issue).
The Constitution allows for the issuance of a warrant, supported by probable cause, to search for evidence of a crime. A warrant was issued for the phone and specifically the data on the phone. That is the 4th Amendment being applied properly. The 5th applies to producing testimony against yourself. Data on a phone is not testimony. It is evidence if anything. Whether that evidence leads to a conviction or not is up to the prosecution / defense arguments.
Think of it this way...
If you write a note that says, "I killed Joe." and put that note in a box. The police get a warrant for the box and find the note, it is evidence that the prosecution then has to prove is valid. Same thing here.
BTW, he was jailed on the basis of contempt of court charges for denying the proper code for the police to comply with the warrant. The judge didn't buy the defendant's argument that he gave them the proper code.
so much this. People don't realize that just about every major health initiative is funded by the gov't..
Just curious, where did the gov't get the money to fund those initiatives?
Take your time, I'll wait.
Mostly from China. The national debt caused by both bailing out failing capitalists and handing out military / homeland security contracts like water has made China, a communist country, the holder of most of our debt.
The problem with your statement is it ignores "winner take all" in the EC. That invalidates and marginalizes that part of a state whose wishes are for another candidate than the one who won the state overall.
There are many problems with our election system that are intentionally designed to disenfranchise huge portions of the population. That is why you have such a low voter turnout in election in the US.
The biggest elephant in the room has nothing to do with the structure of the election system and has been ignored in this topic. Namely, the baby boomers that are retiring with nothing better to do than visit the graves of their dead friends and family and vote. As people grow older, they tend to get to be more crotchety "get off my lawn" types (read conservative). The US will swing much more red as more and more of them retire.
But taking down a site and not turning it off to uncover any related activity for 2 weeks is well within the scope of an investigation not needing pre-approval.
Except we are talking about child pornography here which is illegal to possess even for the FBI.
"properly authorized" still means they have to be clean themselves. For example, they can't have sex with you then arrest you for solicitations based on that sex. If the servers had child pron on them and the FBI was running them, then they broke the law themselves since simply possessing said porn is a crime. It surprises me that nobody brought up this little twist yet.
And what exactly do you think anti-trust laws cover?
Antitrust laws cover more than just monopolies. It covers collusion and price fixing as well (usually in the same charge since it is almost impossible to have price fixing without collusion). It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. What is illegal is abuse of that monopoly. Also, it isn't required for a business to have an absolute monopoly to be considered as a defacto monopoly. It is called "market dominance" and abuse of that dominance has the same effect as if they were a monopoly.
I live in WV where Mylan CEO Heather Bresch (and her Senator father Joe Manchin are from) and they had on the local news just what you are describing. They said that the local ambulances stopped carrying the EpiPens because they were rarely used and tended to expire more often that they were used. It's a cost/benefit analysis the county did and they quickly came to the same conclusion as you did just now. Lastly, the schools here in WV all have trained nurses on staff that can administer the drug WITHOUT issues. In fact, just like Insulin, students have to surrender their drugs to the nurse upon entry into the school with a doctor's verification of the prescription. So I don't see the problem either with using a syringe.
... The Orlando shooter was investigated by the FBI a few times and supposedly was reported by a gun shop owner for suspicious behavior attempting to buy ammo in bulk and body armor.
So instead of the government doing their fucking job and actively investigating these people that really seem to need a closer look they instead seek to take away rights from everyone else.
That is a non-sequiter...
In the first part of your statements you are advocating violating privacy and restricting 2nd amendment rights based on the amount of rounds and body armor. You them go on to say they are damned because they didn't violate his privacy enough! Please make up your mind...
And last I checked, inquiring about goods for sale isn't a crime. It only becomes a crime when those goods are used illegally. Otherwise it is just a rumor.
If only sick/unhealthy people get health insurance, then the cost of that insurance has to be high, because they will have a higher rate of claims. Those who are fortunate enough to have great health might forego insurance, but on average most people expect to have some issue or other that might require insurance coverage, so on average most people will want insurance. So more people get insurance, and the average cost of insurance goes down because the average claims rate across the larger pool is lower.
The higher the certainty of people making claims, the less of a solution "insurance" is - insurance is intended to spread risk among a large pool. It seems to be very hard to get people to understand that on average, people cannot expect to get more out of an insurance plan than what they pay into the plan. If that were so, the insurance company would go out of business. As much as people may dislike insurance companies (and many insurance companies have earned the dislike/hatred of their customers), they provide a substantial social benefit when they perform their basic risk management function.
You forgot to mention that insurance is also designed to not be used. With out of pocket expenses, high deductibles, yearly maximum benefits and co-pays that make it unsuitable even every year doctor visits. Add in the high cost of medications and god forbid an ambulance ride to the hospital for an extended stay and you still have the threat of bankruptcy.
Agreements with binding arbitration clauses are strictly more limiting than those without. Without such clauses, both parties can either agree to take their grievance to an arbiter and agree that his decision is binding, or take their grievances before a court. With such clauses, both parties can *only* use an arbiter and are *barred* from taking their grievance before a court.
Given that the results of arbitration proceedings are almost always kept secret, that arbitration proceedings are almost always one-on-one, and that a decision reached by arbitration panels has no bearing whatsoever on any future decisions reached by any other panel (including the one that reached the decision), this *greatly* weakens our ability to publicise, punish, and (eventually) legally bar systematic corporate misbehavior.
You left out a MAJOR point.... The arbitrator is picked by the company. No arbitrator is going to bite the hand that feeds them.
Or you can get a default judgment of $100K if you file suit and defendant does something inadvisable like completely ignore it.
There are many ways to get a default judgement one of them being the venue shopping these people do looking for a court that will not only be very favorable to them but that is likely out of the jurisdiction where the defendant lives. If the defendant wasn't served a subpoena, there is no possible way they could have answered it in a timely fashion. And like you say, the story doesn't say why he got the default judgement.
Political discourse is something that nerds need to pay attention to,
That would be true if it was a discourse... From what I am reading, it is merely people frothing at the mouth and not doing one bit of true discourse.
and it's something that matters.
That remains to be seen! From what I have seen of American politics, none of it matters! Everything from the broken 2 party system to the media that feeds on the hate. From the totally unnecessary electoral college meaning my vote doesn't count for shit to the failures we are producing as candidates. From the corporate puppets we have in Congress to the fools that keep electing them always blaming some other fools Congressional choice for the total collapse of this discourse you talk about even in the halls where discourse is supposed to happen! Again, it doesn't matter.
All of the issues you raise boil down to one line....
People are using hardware and software like an appliance no different from their toaster. As long as they get what they want, when they want it, they will give up any freedoms.
That is why every EULA out there is meant to strip consumers of their rights. Their right to sue is stripped in favor of "arbitration" which is weighted towards the company paying them, stripped of their right to copy even for backup via DRM, stripped of their right to be secure by all the tracking and "targeted" advertising. The list goes on and on...
They were using acoustic couplers taped to the phones in the movie. 28.8 baud modems were too new for that. I know, I had a 300 baud acoustic modem way back when...
The practical upper limit for acoustic-coupled modems was 1200-baud, first made available in 1973 by Vadic and 1977 by AT&T. It became widespread in 1985 with advent of the Hayes Smartmodem 1200A. Such devices facilitated the creation of dial-up bulletin board systems, a forerunner of modern internet chat rooms, message boards, and e-mail.
Would you prefer that they sued AT&T for $100 million and then pocketed it all instead of giving out refunds?
No, I would prefer a suspension of their corporate charter when they break the law. Why should the law protect them from personal suits when they break the law? I say if they want to be treated as "people" then let's treat them as people with something real to lose.
And if you think that AT&T hasn't already calculated fines into the price of their services, I have some prime land in Florida called the Everglades to sell you. That is why fining does no good with corporations. That is why they are always getting busted with no real effect. Again, suspend their corporate charter and see how fast they come into compliance with the law.
Which is monumentally STUPID! That leads to people writing it down just so they can remember it. I can see my idiot brother even writing it on the card so he doesn't have to remember it!
Slashdot Mirror
You see this argument a lot. What it leaves is the question of why you don't trust the vaccine you got? If someone has a suppressed immune system for whatever reason, then it really doesn't matter if they get vaccinated since it won't work. They should take special care to not put themselves in situations where they can catch something or protect themselves in other ways (such as masks and gloves). So again, either you trust the vaccine you get or you don't. Presenting that argument puts the onus on everyone else for the stupidity of a few.
On the other side, if someone gets a disease that a common vaccine exists for, then the treatment costs should be solely on the one who caught it. Insurance shouldn't have to pay for it.
I for one trust the vaccines I got so this is a non-issue for me.
From the list...
(emphasis added). So it is against this policy to even describe how to do it. What this will do is kill the developers who use FB most notably the build developers.
Try working Emergency Management. Then you will know real pressure.
Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes for the security flaw to show its ugly head that will allow anyone to read your SMS messages?
They are acting like Firefox is the only workaround for getting to YouTube. There is, of course, Kodi which has a Kodi supported (in their repository) YouTube plugin. That is if YouTube is worth it these days. I haven't done anything on YouTube at all this year.
Many jobs don't "require" either. Agriculture and animal husbandry are just two that come to my mind readily. Do they help? Yes, but they aren't required. Believe it or not, there was a time when there was no Internet and things still got done. Maybe a little harder. Maybe a little longer but it still got done.
9. Explain the Sony Betamax suit that those producers lost allowing people to "time shift" and how this is an extension of that same decision.
10. Explain the concepts of the public domain and why that is the sole reason for the existence of copyright.
11. Explain how those producers lobbied (read bribed) legislators to extend copyright to the point that nothing will be released to the public domain in his lifetime.
12. Explain that the DMCA was created by those same politicians in the same manor as the extensions to try and prevent format shifting.
13. Explain what the definition of greed is (on both sides of this issue).
The Constitution allows for the issuance of a warrant, supported by probable cause, to search for evidence of a crime. A warrant was issued for the phone and specifically the data on the phone. That is the 4th Amendment being applied properly. The 5th applies to producing testimony against yourself. Data on a phone is not testimony. It is evidence if anything. Whether that evidence leads to a conviction or not is up to the prosecution / defense arguments.
Think of it this way...
If you write a note that says, "I killed Joe." and put that note in a box. The police get a warrant for the box and find the note, it is evidence that the prosecution then has to prove is valid. Same thing here.
BTW, he was jailed on the basis of contempt of court charges for denying the proper code for the police to comply with the warrant. The judge didn't buy the defendant's argument that he gave them the proper code.
Oh we do understand it but what you aren't understanding is AT&T also acquired DirecTV which still lowers competition in the media provider sector.
Mostly from China. The national debt caused by both bailing out failing capitalists and handing out military / homeland security contracts like water has made China, a communist country, the holder of most of our debt.
The problem with your statement is it ignores "winner take all" in the EC. That invalidates and marginalizes that part of a state whose wishes are for another candidate than the one who won the state overall.
There are many problems with our election system that are intentionally designed to disenfranchise huge portions of the population. That is why you have such a low voter turnout in election in the US.
The biggest elephant in the room has nothing to do with the structure of the election system and has been ignored in this topic. Namely, the baby boomers that are retiring with nothing better to do than visit the graves of their dead friends and family and vote. As people grow older, they tend to get to be more crotchety "get off my lawn" types (read conservative). The US will swing much more red as more and more of them retire.
Except we are talking about child pornography here which is illegal to possess even for the FBI.
"properly authorized" still means they have to be clean themselves. For example, they can't have sex with you then arrest you for solicitations based on that sex. If the servers had child pron on them and the FBI was running them, then they broke the law themselves since simply possessing said porn is a crime. It surprises me that nobody brought up this little twist yet.
Antitrust laws cover more than just monopolies. It covers collusion and price fixing as well (usually in the same charge since it is almost impossible to have price fixing without collusion). It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. What is illegal is abuse of that monopoly. Also, it isn't required for a business to have an absolute monopoly to be considered as a defacto monopoly. It is called "market dominance" and abuse of that dominance has the same effect as if they were a monopoly.
I live in WV where Mylan CEO Heather Bresch (and her Senator father Joe Manchin are from) and they had on the local news just what you are describing. They said that the local ambulances stopped carrying the EpiPens because they were rarely used and tended to expire more often that they were used. It's a cost/benefit analysis the county did and they quickly came to the same conclusion as you did just now. Lastly, the schools here in WV all have trained nurses on staff that can administer the drug WITHOUT issues. In fact, just like Insulin, students have to surrender their drugs to the nurse upon entry into the school with a doctor's verification of the prescription. So I don't see the problem either with using a syringe.
That is a non-sequiter...
In the first part of your statements you are advocating violating privacy and restricting 2nd amendment rights based on the amount of rounds and body armor. You them go on to say they are damned because they didn't violate his privacy enough! Please make up your mind...
And last I checked, inquiring about goods for sale isn't a crime. It only becomes a crime when those goods are used illegally. Otherwise it is just a rumor.
You forgot to mention that insurance is also designed to not be used. With out of pocket expenses, high deductibles, yearly maximum benefits and co-pays that make it unsuitable even every year doctor visits. Add in the high cost of medications and god forbid an ambulance ride to the hospital for an extended stay and you still have the threat of bankruptcy.
You left out a MAJOR point.... The arbitrator is picked by the company. No arbitrator is going to bite the hand that feeds them.
There are many ways to get a default judgement one of them being the venue shopping these people do looking for a court that will not only be very favorable to them but that is likely out of the jurisdiction where the defendant lives. If the defendant wasn't served a subpoena, there is no possible way they could have answered it in a timely fashion. And like you say, the story doesn't say why he got the default judgement.
That would be true if it was a discourse... From what I am reading, it is merely people frothing at the mouth and not doing one bit of true discourse.
That remains to be seen! From what I have seen of American politics, none of it matters! Everything from the broken 2 party system to the media that feeds on the hate. From the totally unnecessary electoral college meaning my vote doesn't count for shit to the failures we are producing as candidates. From the corporate puppets we have in Congress to the fools that keep electing them always blaming some other fools Congressional choice for the total collapse of this discourse you talk about even in the halls where discourse is supposed to happen! Again, it doesn't matter.
All of the issues you raise boil down to one line....
People are using hardware and software like an appliance no different from their toaster. As long as they get what they want, when they want it, they will give up any freedoms.
That is why every EULA out there is meant to strip consumers of their rights. Their right to sue is stripped in favor of "arbitration" which is weighted towards the company paying them, stripped of their right to copy even for backup via DRM, stripped of their right to be secure by all the tracking and "targeted" advertising. The list goes on and on...
They were using acoustic couplers taped to the phones in the movie. 28.8 baud modems were too new for that. I know, I had a 300 baud acoustic modem way back when...
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you read what I was replying to you will see it was the FTC and FCC fines I was talking about. Those do go through a court.
No, I would prefer a suspension of their corporate charter when they break the law. Why should the law protect them from personal suits when they break the law? I say if they want to be treated as "people" then let's treat them as people with something real to lose.
And if you think that AT&T hasn't already calculated fines into the price of their services, I have some prime land in Florida called the Everglades to sell you. That is why fining does no good with corporations. That is why they are always getting busted with no real effect. Again, suspend their corporate charter and see how fast they come into compliance with the law.
Which is monumentally STUPID! That leads to people writing it down just so they can remember it. I can see my idiot brother even writing it on the card so he doesn't have to remember it!