And indeed the NY Times was charged with espionage after the publication
No, the Times was not charged with espionage. The people who gave the information to the Times were, though "irregularities in the government's case" is putting it mildly.
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal. They stopped allowing people to send money to a criminal (in their jurisdiction) company. Case closed. This has nothing to do with 'free speech' and the First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with this.
Your statement is incorrect. Please read the decision of New York Times Co. v. United States.
On one hand yes, on another hand no. It's kind of a grey area. Admitting that taking this information and giving it away is a federal offense, then it is hard to deny that knowingly publishing and distributing it while consealing the source, is accessory.
No, it is quite easy to deny that. See the decision of New York Times Co. v. United States, which regarded the right of the press to publish material regarding the Pentagon papers.
IMHO: "A list of stuff that people can blow up if they want to screw with us", is something that legitimately deserves to be hidden from everyone but the guy dispatching people to guard that stuff.
The things in question aren't secret by any means. Anyone in the countries in question would know they're important infrastructure. For example, in Canada, they list stuff like our nuclear power plants (Which provide about half of Ontario's power and exports significant amounts to the northeast US), various bridges and international rail crossings, major border crossings, natural gas and oil pipelines (Lots of which connect to the US), several dams and hydroelectric plants, some mines (germanium, graphite, iron, niobium, and nickle), and various factories, including ones producing medical supplies such as vaccines (specifically polio and influenza), blood plasma, and weapon components, and the Chalk River nuclear laboratory, which produces about 1/3rd of the world's medical isotopes.
Basically anyone in Canada who sat down and thought about it for a bit would come up with most of those as places that would cause widespread disruption if you took them out of operation.
Or, if people just mute their TVs during commercials, advertisers will not have any incentive to engage in the practice, and suddenly the problem is solved without a committee deciding what is "too loud."
Yes, the mute button is very useful after my speakers blow up, which I have literally had happen. I had the volume cranked up to hear quiet dialogue in a movie, then a blasting commercial came on and the speakers gave off a puff of smoke and died.
They be "selective" about the documents being released (beyond redaction of some information in them), and suddenly they're now the target of people crying that they're censoring the real interesting information. Therefore, their policy is simply "release it all and let someone else sort it out".
None of it and I stated as much in my post, along with probably why. Just because he's a former adviser doesn't mean his opinions don't carry any weight with anyone important and doesn't mean he can't be cast out further from the inner circle if he keeps making ill advised remarks in public.
"Recanted" in this case most likely means "Harper threw a fit when he heard what I said, so I'm taking it back before I get blackballed". There's a reason why he's a former head of staff and a former adviser, i.e. he's a political loose cannon if let near a camera or microphone and not the type of person Harper wants anywhere near him, lest his chances of ever getting a majority be destroyed.
All that depends on your instructions in your will. They are only permitted to do what you instruct them to do with the accounts, whether that be provide for their continued operation or simply shut them down . Anything else is a violation of existing estate laws.
The law itself is quite short. The "where otherwise authorized" bit is the key part. This law only applies if you instruct them to do something with the accounts.
Section 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified by the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 269 of Title 58, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows :
The executor or administrator of an estate shall have the power, where otherwise authorized, to take control or, conduct, continue, or terminate any accounts of a deceased person on any social networking website, any microblogging or short message service website or any e-mail service websites.
Section 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2010
But I think exposing kids to the adult world and showing them what it is peoeple (er, adults) do for a living would teach kids a lot about the world; let them intern where applicable. A large dose of primary experience is probably good for their education. Why don't school do that?
My high school (in Canada) offered that as a class. It was an elective, but it did exist. Also included useful stuff like resume writing, interview skills, and education about provincial and federal labour laws.
IMO, said class ought to be compulsory, along with the personal finance class (budgeting, how saving and borrowing works (i.e. compound interest), basic investing (RRSPs, RESPs, TFSAs, etc.), taxes, etc.) I took, which was also an elective. Those 2 classes have been more useful than anything else in those 4 years.
Depends on where in Canada. In the east, you get Bell and Rogers instituting hideously low caps trying to shut out streaming services (e.g. Netflix) so they can force you into their overpriced video-on-demand service, with the CRTC happy to let them institute the same caps on the competition (Teksavvy, et al).
Over here in the west, there's something resembling a functional market with 3 major players competing and a few small guys. Fastest available here is 25/2 ($100/month, available in all major cities in the province, no cap) or 100/5 ($160/month, but more limited availability and 500GB/month cap).
Slashdot Mirror
And indeed the NY Times was charged with espionage after the publication
No, the Times was not charged with espionage. The people who gave the information to the Times were, though "irregularities in the government's case" is putting it mildly.
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal. They stopped allowing people to send money to a criminal (in their jurisdiction) company. Case closed. This has nothing to do with 'free speech' and the First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with this.
Your statement is incorrect. Please read the decision of New York Times Co. v. United States.
Furthermore, Visa is already doing the same thing.
Exactly the same thing, blocking donations to wikileaks.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20024776-281.html
On one hand yes, on another hand no. It's kind of a grey area. Admitting that taking this information and giving it away is a federal offense, then it is hard to deny that knowingly publishing and distributing it while consealing the source, is accessory.
No, it is quite easy to deny that. See the decision of New York Times Co. v. United States, which regarded the right of the press to publish material regarding the Pentagon papers.
IMHO: "A list of stuff that people can blow up if they want to screw with us", is something that legitimately deserves to be hidden from everyone but the guy dispatching people to guard that stuff.
The things in question aren't secret by any means. Anyone in the countries in question would know they're important infrastructure. For example, in Canada, they list stuff like our nuclear power plants (Which provide about half of Ontario's power and exports significant amounts to the northeast US), various bridges and international rail crossings, major border crossings, natural gas and oil pipelines (Lots of which connect to the US), several dams and hydroelectric plants, some mines (germanium, graphite, iron, niobium, and nickle), and various factories, including ones producing medical supplies such as vaccines (specifically polio and influenza), blood plasma, and weapon components, and the Chalk River nuclear laboratory, which produces about 1/3rd of the world's medical isotopes.
Basically anyone in Canada who sat down and thought about it for a bit would come up with most of those as places that would cause widespread disruption if you took them out of operation.
If they were to say "Here's half the documents. You wouldn't be interested in the rest of it", would you believe them?
Cash? More than $10k and you've got a paper/electron trail. Good luck buying a house or anything more than a quite old or very basic car.
Or, if people just mute their TVs during commercials, advertisers will not have any incentive to engage in the practice, and suddenly the problem is solved without a committee deciding what is "too loud."
How do the advertisers know you're muting them?
Yes, the mute button is very useful after my speakers blow up, which I have literally had happen. I had the volume cranked up to hear quiet dialogue in a movie, then a blasting commercial came on and the speakers gave off a puff of smoke and died.
They be "selective" about the documents being released (beyond redaction of some information in them), and suddenly they're now the target of people crying that they're censoring the real interesting information. Therefore, their policy is simply "release it all and let someone else sort it out".
Think they'd provide enough power for a hovercraft? ;)
None of it and I stated as much in my post, along with probably why. Just because he's a former adviser doesn't mean his opinions don't carry any weight with anyone important and doesn't mean he can't be cast out further from the inner circle if he keeps making ill advised remarks in public.
"Recanted" in this case most likely means "Harper threw a fit when he heard what I said, so I'm taking it back before I get blackballed". There's a reason why he's a former head of staff and a former adviser, i.e. he's a political loose cannon if let near a camera or microphone and not the type of person Harper wants anywhere near him, lest his chances of ever getting a majority be destroyed.
All that depends on your instructions in your will. They are only permitted to do what you instruct them to do with the accounts, whether that be provide for their continued operation or simply shut them down . Anything else is a violation of existing estate laws.
The law itself is quite short. The "where otherwise authorized" bit is the key part. This law only applies if you instruct them to do something with the accounts.
Section 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified by the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 269 of Title 58, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows :
The executor or administrator of an estate shall have the power, where otherwise authorized, to take control or, conduct, continue, or terminate any accounts of a deceased person on any social networking website, any microblogging or short message service website or any e-mail service websites.
Section 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2010
https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/legislation/52nd/2010/2R/HB/2800.pdf
No, because the MAC address isn't visible beyond the first router.
They'll steal fibre too. Or just end up mangling the fibre while looking for copper.
They only lost 1/2 a million - or about 0.4% of total US households.
or about 2% of their actual customers.
But I think exposing kids to the adult world and showing them what it is peoeple (er, adults) do for a living would teach kids a lot about the world; let them intern where applicable. A large dose of primary experience is probably good for their education. Why don't school do that?
My high school (in Canada) offered that as a class. It was an elective, but it did exist. Also included useful stuff like resume writing, interview skills, and education about provincial and federal labour laws.
IMO, said class ought to be compulsory, along with the personal finance class (budgeting, how saving and borrowing works (i.e. compound interest), basic investing (RRSPs, RESPs, TFSAs, etc.), taxes, etc.) I took, which was also an elective. Those 2 classes have been more useful than anything else in those 4 years.
Depends on where in Canada. In the east, you get Bell and Rogers instituting hideously low caps trying to shut out streaming services (e.g. Netflix) so they can force you into their overpriced video-on-demand service, with the CRTC happy to let them institute the same caps on the competition (Teksavvy, et al).
Over here in the west, there's something resembling a functional market with 3 major players competing and a few small guys. Fastest available here is 25/2 ($100/month, available in all major cities in the province, no cap) or 100/5 ($160/month, but more limited availability and 500GB/month cap).
And yet your dense cities can't get decent connection speeds either.
And now watch your argument fall to pieces when you compare the size and population density of the cities.
Yes, but this quake would occur almost right on top of the rail nexus to the entire northeast.
That much rail would take considerably longer than a week to repair.
Yes.
The only possibility I can think of that's even remotely like that is wholesale destruction of grain elevators.
How about wholesale destruction of railroad tracks? A strong earthquake will do amusing things to the rails.