You mean take away the tv and people will no longer seek out any of the mass media? They will, sounds like those important lessons could be migrated to other mediums then, one that doesn't require the government to subsidize televisions.
You're saying they can't sell off the spectrum without subsidizing tvs? They can, sounds like they could be spending that money on more important things then.
Its really quite sad to see this money wasted on television when the government could instead be using it on health care or education. I guess keeping the masses docile is more important then educating the next generation. A lesson that will unfortunately go unlearned for most kids.
People should be able to view anything that willingly enters their property. If they don't want me freely using their satellite tv, they should find a way to send it to customers without invading my airspace.
If this happens a lot, it becomes expected that they will search hard drives, and turn over evidence. At that point, could it not be said that they are 'working at the behest of the police'?? Why would they do that if they were sued everytime for infringing on someone's privacy? Just because something should be allowed in a criminal case doesn't mean the party that illegally took the information should be allowed to get away with it civilly.
Both should be allowed in if either:
a) The thief stole the photos and handed it to the police
b) A warrant was issued based on the thief's report and the house searched and the photos obtained.
He might actually have a right to privacy, however he would have to sue circuit city to get restitution for it being infringed.
IANAL but I am a human being, and if someone who is not working at the behest of the police infringes on someone's rights but also discovers evidence and turns it over to the police, that evidence should be admissible. For example if a thief breaks into someone's home and discovers child porn and hands it over to the police, the prosecutor should be allowed to use that evidence. Now if there was evidence that the thief was working for the police (for example they routinely handed over evidence to the police) that would be a different story.
A harmful precedent being that encouraging people to break their NDA and then publish what they is actionable? I'm guessing that precedent has already been set.
See the difference. One is a case of rental of space, where it's possible for Big/mega cola to rent all the space. The other is a retail product sales. You skip over the point that university cafeterias also stock fridges of bottles of pepsi or coke, but never both. You also seem to have forgotten the fastfood franchises which also have fridges of pepsi or coke but never both.
How about paying a university not to stock Pepsi? Or a franchise not to stock Coke? Oh wait, both these things happen all the time. Where's the news here again?
Does HP have a monopoly on ink cartridges? In Australia they certainly don't (when I think ink cartridge they're not a company I typically think of) and TFA merely says they're dominant.
Slashdot Mirror
"Rights" they gained by breaking the Constitution. Sounds like they don't truly have those rights.
Spoken like someone who doesn't create. Thanks for being a leech on society.
You mean take away the tv and people will no longer seek out any of the mass media? They will, sounds like those important lessons could be migrated to other mediums then, one that doesn't require the government to subsidize televisions.
You're saying they can't sell off the spectrum without subsidizing tvs? They can, sounds like they could be spending that money on more important things then.
No, I'm more then happy for people to eavesdrop on my personal conversation if it [b]enters their private property[/b].
Its really quite sad to see this money wasted on television when the government could instead be using it on health care or education. I guess keeping the masses docile is more important then educating the next generation. A lesson that will unfortunately go unlearned for most kids.
People should be able to view anything that willingly enters their property. If they don't want me freely using their satellite tv, they should find a way to send it to customers without invading my airspace.
Telephones can be crucial to saving peoples lives (911 anyone?). Television, while it can be helpful, isn't anywhere near as crucial.
Can't have the people go without their circuses. They might actually start paying attention to politics!
The correct URL is http://manybooks.net/
I'm currently up to my ears in paper books. E-books do away with this problem. But of course, I MUST be rationalizing my need for one.
Its available in almost all of them.
Both should be allowed in if either: a) The thief stole the photos and handed it to the police b) A warrant was issued based on the thief's report and the house searched and the photos obtained.
Next you'll be saying that eyewitnesses reporting what they see to police is infringing on someone's privacy.
You mean you don't think this child porn is authentic?
He might actually have a right to privacy, however he would have to sue circuit city to get restitution for it being infringed. IANAL but I am a human being, and if someone who is not working at the behest of the police infringes on someone's rights but also discovers evidence and turns it over to the police, that evidence should be admissible. For example if a thief breaks into someone's home and discovers child porn and hands it over to the police, the prosecutor should be allowed to use that evidence. Now if there was evidence that the thief was working for the police (for example they routinely handed over evidence to the police) that would be a different story.
A harmful precedent being that encouraging people to break their NDA and then publish what they is actionable? I'm guessing that precedent has already been set.
Wouldn't that be censorship?
Yes it does.
Its their own fault for doing it.
Clearly he works for HP.
How about paying a university not to stock Pepsi? Or a franchise not to stock Coke? Oh wait, both these things happen all the time. Where's the news here again?
Does HP have a monopoly on ink cartridges? In Australia they certainly don't (when I think ink cartridge they're not a company I typically think of) and TFA merely says they're dominant.