You can also add the trade secret. There's no requirement to go public if you do come up w/a clever idea if it really is unique and you think you can make money w/it.
No it doesn't - you must be that judge I argued w/when I didn't want to sit on a jury. The 5th "protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves" (e.g. fifth amendment). There's nothing that states explicitly or otherwise that another person, viz. a juror, can't weigh this unwillingness against them.
I think you're completely missing the point. This is an interview. The journalist is presenting the person as 'fact', not his or her comments. To put it another way, I can't possibly imagine an organization fact checking everything somebody being interviewed states before reairing it. Even if fact checking was done on something controversial there's no excuse for censoring (and that's what it is) it out of the interview. It should be kept in and the news organization could then present the result of its fact checking.
In high school (before many/.ers were born) I used to watch groups of my fellow classmates and think of them as atoms. Collecting into various size groups as their needs/valences dictated. Some bonds were stronger or more stable than others and various relationship interactions would be like external energy (e.g. kinetic) stirring up the mix as it were.
Slashdot Mirror
You can also add the trade secret. There's no requirement to go public if you do come up w/a clever idea if it really is unique and you think you can make money w/it.
According to the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-domain24jan24,1,2623693.story?ctrack=1&cset=true. I too would have thought that searches would have put an end to this annoying type of speculation.
No it doesn't - you must be that judge I argued w/when I didn't want to sit on a jury. The 5th "protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves" (e.g. fifth amendment). There's nothing that states explicitly or otherwise that another person, viz. a juror, can't weigh this unwillingness against them.
As the series progressed? I've not read the books so I can't really say. But you've got to wonder. I don't think this was an issue w/Tolkien.
I think you're completely missing the point. This is an interview. The journalist is presenting the person as 'fact', not his or her comments. To put it another way, I can't possibly imagine an organization fact checking everything somebody being interviewed states before reairing it. Even if fact checking was done on something controversial there's no excuse for censoring (and that's what it is) it out of the interview. It should be kept in and the news organization could then present the result of its fact checking.
In high school (before many /.ers were born) I used to watch groups of my fellow classmates and think of them as atoms. Collecting into various size groups as their needs/valences dictated. Some bonds were stronger or more stable than others and various relationship interactions would be like external energy (e.g. kinetic) stirring up the mix as it were.
Yes