Also, you can't file civil suits based upon "supporting terrorist organizations" or "aiding the enemy." Only the U.S. government and the states can bring criminal charges, and note that they're not doing so...
Unfortunately, that's the cost of actively policing your content. Once you start doing it, as Facebook and Twitter have, you lose "common carrier" status and can be held liable for what you've missed.
You're not a lawyer, so stop trying to practice law. The reason that we're so protective of that is that even well-meaning people get so many things so wrong.
For example, the EFF, which is significantly staffed by lawyers, reports:
Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficiently contributed to the content to take it as your own.
(c) Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material[:] (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker[:] No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2) Civil liability[:] No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
So no, policing the content on your site does not make you liable, protections are not based on "common carrier" status, and you certainly cannot be liable for content that you've "missed" or even decided not to block.
BTW: I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, in part because you're an idiot.
OK, so you're going to throw most of the ice away to shape it.
So we're going to assume that you're only selecting from spherical icebergs that are already sized for your needs, rather than splitting off ice from a larger iceberg, selecting from elongated icebergs, etc. Because?
Also, good to know that some AC has declared that fracturing a "sphere" into two or three more elongated shapes is completely impossible....
The calculation of a sphere is a reasonable estimate of any sane shape such a berg would be naturally, and artificially shaping it is dumber even than the idea of towing the ice in the first place
Let's pretend that mining engineering and stonemasonry doesn't exist, hat we don't artificially shape rock every day, and that we literally cannot be bothered to reduce drag when we push large objects through water...
Cut into a sphere for ease of transport and calculation
Immediate fail. Any competent engineer would select and/or shape a object intended for transport into a rough hull shape, with a L/B ratio of ~6. I'd expect some change because there'd be less desire to conform to conventional L/D ratios, but there's no way that you'd select a sphere.
"Assume a spherical cow on a frictionless plane..." Um... no.
It's the explicit profanity, and Colbert knows better.
Too bad that's not the test. The FCC only has the ability to regulate "obscenity" during late night (10pm to 6am). To be obscene the material:
"must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a 'patently offensive' way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
I expect the Pai-led FCC will attempt to levy a fine. I'd also love to be a CBS lawyer handling the case, and expect CBS to ultimately prevail in court, due to the "serious political value" prong and the clear evidence that this was a riff against Trump.
As long as the traffic laws are obeyed, the government has no authority to restrict specific vehicles all because they giving a ride.
A century of taxi regulation at the state and municipal level says that you're wrong. Notice that the one thing that Uber has not tried i arguing that they cannot be regulated. Instead, they lobby against regulation and engage in illegal data collection (Facebook history, credit checks not connected to requets for lines of credit) to avoid it.
Above message was posted from the "BLM\:TRMP" App. The official App interface for the Blm.trmp Blame-Trump-As-A-Service Cloud App. Available now from all the App Stores.
I would pay for this app. Turnabout is fair play given 2008-16, you special, conservative snowflake.
Tiny speakers like the ones in a smartphone are going to hit 18khz at BEST. It's probably closer to 15khz in reality. Even high-end studio monitors only reach 20-22khz. It takes specially designed transducers to operate in the ultrasound range. This story is complete bullshit.
Tiny speakers are easier to drive at high frequencies because there's so little mass to drive. Also, your assessment is just plain wrong.
The iPhone 3GS and 4, for example, are just as capable of pushing out a 20kHz signal as a 10kHz signal. The iPhone 4 speaker actually is more effective at 20 kHz than at 10kHz.
This story is accurate. Your fact-free analysis of what smartphone speakers can and cannot do is bullshit.
Um. I have a non-EFI system that's happily running off an SSD. The fact that you don't know that SATA-attached SSDs look exactly like spinning rust disks to the underlying system makes you sound like a typical clueless systemd supporter.:(
The fact that you ignore NVMe SSDs makes you sound even more clueless...
If the small (yes small) number of people who use Mackintoshes proves that Apple should build Towers, then the small (yes small) number of Windows Phone users proves we should all be using Windows phones.
Aside from the fact that the question of whether you should cater to a professional class of users by building a professional class product (think video production) and the question of whether "we should all" be using such a product are entirely different things...
huh?
Stop believing that YOUR needs/wants = the majority, they aren't.
Nobody argued that this reflected the majority's need/wants. The majority want Macbooks, and they pretty much have them available to them. Apple occasionally thinks that it wants to serve such specialized minorities, as evidenced by the trashcan mac pro.
If you want a product, you need to convince the market to serve your needs. That's what's being done here. Stop believing that YOUR indignation is noteworthy, much less rational.
Who is the GP discussing free speech with? A random on the internet? Oregon would not fine someone who was just discussing things among others, even peers.
But the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, the one organization that wouldn't be deceived as to whether he was a licensed or unlicensed engineer, must be protected from his complaint?
So your point is that a "random" on the internet doesn't matter, but the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying should be able fine non-engineers for daring to bring engineering topics to their attention and claiming to the Board that they have an engineering education.
What he did do was an analysis which was sent to the owner of the specific problem.
Which he sent to the state licensing board, which he is absolutely privileged to do by the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Mic drop. Licensed, practicing lawyer ouuuuuuuut...
The question I would ask is "Is writing an unsolicited letter to the state engineering board regarding the safety issues resulting from the length of a yellow traffic light considered part of the profession of engineering?"
Doesn't matter if it is considered part of the profession of engineering or not. It's First Amendment protected speech:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You don't have to be a licensed engineer to have a grievance concerning the length of a yellow light.
Some states have very strict licensing laws with regard to the term engineer, other restrict that to the term professional engineer. Nevada blocked Novell "engineers" from claiming they are such. The law on this is pretty settled, the guy is going to be lucky to pay that fine, by claiming he was an engineer directly to the licensing board he opened himself to the boards authority and they have the authority to incarcerate engineers under their authority and they can levy some pretty hefty fines.
Congratulations. By analyzing "the law" on this issue and publishing your results you've engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. I'll be filing a complaint with your state bar so that they can fine you as well shortly...
This flying jet ski is supposedly an ultralight; a true single seat ultralight requires no license to fly (assuming it meets the requirements of Part 103 for an ultralight aircraft).
The jet ski/ultralight part isn't enough to save you. You might want to refamiliarize yourself with all of Part 103, not merely the literal text:
The position of the FAA has consistently been that these vehicles may be operated for sport and recreation purposes only. The justification for allowing the operation of these vehicles without requiring aircraft and pilot certification has been that this activity is a ''sport" generally conducted away from concentrations of population and aircraft operations. Like any sport, the participants are viewed as taking personal risks which do not affect others not involved in the activity.
You're free to use your "no license to fly" vehicle in the middle of nowhere, but you're not going to be flying it over a recreational lake where people are boating, fishing, swimming, hanging out at their lakefront property, etc.
103.15 Operations over congested areas. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.
The FAA's position is based on the fact that ultralight vehicles are not certificated as airworthy by any approved method and are flown by uncertificated pilots for sport or recreational purposes only. Similar limitations apply to the operations of experimental and restricted category aircraft based on catastrophic incidents which have occurred in the past....The FAA believes that concentrations of the general public must be protected from the possible dangers inherent in the operations of vehicles of uncertificated, possibly unproven designs. In specific limited instances, with appropriate operational limitations, ultralight operations may be approved over congested areas, through the waiver provisions of Â103.5.
Guess what, the FAA doesn't even like licensed pilots in certified aircraft cruising over recreational lakes. The moment the flying jet ski begins to regularly come into contact with regular jet skis, and everything else, you're going to see licensing added to part 103. Idiots and their drones made aircraft licensing mandatory for anything a bit more than half a pound (250 grams). A multi-hundred pound combination of aircraft and idiot will be a cinch to make GP's prediction come true.
You haven't made $93.8M, much less paid that amount in taxes, in your entire life. What it this "my" nonsense?
The notion that a piddly, five figure contribution to $3 trillion in federal tax revenue means that the the federal government should only do what each individual out of 300 million feels is appropriate needs to die in a fire.
It's not your tax dollars, and the amount attributable to your tax obligation to the federal government is 0.0033%, which, being extremely generous, means that you were indirectly the source of as much as $3.
I dislike DJT, but this is too much considering the reason why we bombed Syria. My tax payer dollars can pick up your three dollars, and you can suck a egg you heartless bastard.
[The downfall of this idea is] that landlords have access to bidders personal information.
You've apparently never rented residential property. Landlords always have access to personal information. First, you meet with them, or their manager, when you want to see the space. Then you fill out an application. Then the more savvy ones run a credit check, and potentially a litigation check to look for things like evictions, damage complaints, etc. They might even ask for a confirmation of your employment, to look for things like whether you can pay more than the first month's rent and deposit.
Some landlord somewhere will eventually turn down a higher bid from a black/latino/etc potential tenant in favor of a white one, or a male tenant instead of a female one or vice versa, etc etc. Then both the landlord and the company will be buried up to their eyeballs in litigation from every conceivable direction.
The company is going to be immune under the Telecom Act of 1996 (a.k.a. Communications Decency Act, section 230) unless the company itself puts prohibited questions in the applicant information. If you think that they haven't studied the Roommates.com litigation backwards and forwards, you're naive.
Singluar they has been used at least since Shakespeare's day.
Yes. And since Shakespeare's day, pedants who fail to realize that English is not a prescriptive language, for example in the manner certain French insist upon imposing upon other French, will denigrate writers who are far better than they are (as well as everyone else) by citing rules made from whole cloth, usually in an attempt to structure English like Latin. This appears to make them feel superior.
Someone you've never heard of will, almost without fail, stake their self-professed expertise and declare that the authors, dictionaries, and other sources cited in those Wikipedia footnotes and the underlying primary research are simply wrong.
CONFORM! It's the only way that the AC can validate his (or her) choices in life. If everyone does the same thing, then of course that was the optimal thing to do.
I don't need any government regulations backlash on my hands, so I try to ensure it just doesn't come to that. Hiring somebody older in the West means hiring somebody who is a more protected class (in terms of government laws) and it can be dangerous for me, as it can hurt me financially and this is where I draw the line.
I'm tempted to report you myself... it's not often that someone is stupid enough, even pseudononymously, to admit to a clear violation of the law in a manner that they cannot delete on a site that maintains logs...
You Libs sold it to the public in the 30's. Now it's failing. Why?
Failing in the sense that Social Security still raises more money in taxes than it pays out as benefits?
Or failing in the sense that you "cons" are deathly afraid of they day that that tax surplus goes away (as planned) and you cannot spend every cent on a defense budget larger than the next 10 countries' combined spending?
Add Jan + Feb and you will find that 2017 > all years except 2013. Make sure you only connect the things that support your argument?
My argument which was, what exactly?
Ah, yes... that "the business world has an over-abundance of confidence in where the US is heading at this point which are driving these numbers" is not supported by "these numbers."
Also, Jan + Feb 2015 > Jan + Feb 2017, so you're doubly wrong.
The business world has an over-abundance of confidence in where the US is heading at this point which are driving these numbers. These numbers were precipitated by Obama over his last 8 years but to be honest he never inspired this level of confidence.
Hell yeah! We will completely ignore that monthly job gains were even higher in the last month of Obama's presidency, as reported in the summary, and even higher still in February 2016, which preceded the election. But wait, also the same thing in 2015, which preceded Trump's nomination. Bit of a dip in 2014, but even higher numbers in 2013.
This totally supports your argument, so long as you avoid thinking about anything connected to reality.
1-Month Net Change: All employees, thousands, total nonfarm, seasonally adjusted Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 211 286 130 197 226 162 122 261 190 212 258 47 2014 190 151 272 329 246 304 202 230 280 227 312 255 2015 234 238 86 262 344 206 254 157 100 321 272 239 2016 126 237 225 153 43 297 291 176 249 124 164 155 2017 238(P)235(P)
Real music disappeared long ago, Now we have this bleak, dystopian nonsense that seems to be designed to destroy the minds of those who listen to it.
Yeah! Wagner should take that operatic garbage back to Leipzig, and all right thinking people should only buy Cantata. Bach must be rolling over in his grave!
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty sure that you're wrong. Because it's been tried before, multiple times.
Also, you can't file civil suits based upon "supporting terrorist organizations" or "aiding the enemy." Only the U.S. government and the states can bring criminal charges, and note that they're not doing so...
Reread the last line.
You're not a lawyer, so stop trying to practice law. The reason that we're so protective of that is that even well-meaning people get so many things so wrong.
For example, the EFF, which is significantly staffed by lawyers, reports:
Do you know why? Because the law literally says:
So no, policing the content on your site does not make you liable, protections are not based on "common carrier" status, and you certainly cannot be liable for content that you've "missed" or even decided not to block.
BTW: I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, in part because you're an idiot.
So we're going to assume that you're only selecting from spherical icebergs that are already sized for your needs, rather than splitting off ice from a larger iceberg, selecting from elongated icebergs, etc. Because?
Also, good to know that some AC has declared that fracturing a "sphere" into two or three more elongated shapes is completely impossible....
Let's pretend that mining engineering and stonemasonry doesn't exist, hat we don't artificially shape rock every day, and that we literally cannot be bothered to reduce drag when we push large objects through water...
Immediate fail. Any competent engineer would select and/or shape a object intended for transport into a rough hull shape, with a L/B ratio of ~6. I'd expect some change because there'd be less desire to conform to conventional L/D ratios, but there's no way that you'd select a sphere.
"Assume a spherical cow on a frictionless plane..."
Um... no.
Too bad that's not the test. The FCC only has the ability to regulate "obscenity" during late night (10pm to 6am). To be obscene the material:
"must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a 'patently offensive' way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
I expect the Pai-led FCC will attempt to levy a fine. I'd also love to be a CBS lawyer handling the case, and expect CBS to ultimately prevail in court, due to the "serious political value" prong and the clear evidence that this was a riff against Trump.
First amendment.... yee-haw.
A century of taxi regulation at the state and municipal level says that you're wrong. Notice that the one thing that Uber has not tried i arguing that they cannot be regulated. Instead, they lobby against regulation and engage in illegal data collection (Facebook history, credit checks not connected to requets for lines of credit) to avoid it.
I would pay for this app. Turnabout is fair play given 2008-16, you special, conservative snowflake.
Tiny speakers are easier to drive at high frequencies because there's so little mass to drive. Also, your assessment is just plain wrong.
The iPhone 3GS and 4, for example, are just as capable of pushing out a 20kHz signal as a 10kHz signal. The iPhone 4 speaker actually is more effective at 20 kHz than at 10kHz.
This story is accurate. Your fact-free analysis of what smartphone speakers can and cannot do is bullshit.
The fact that you ignore NVMe SSDs makes you sound even more clueless...
There's a horde of video production people out there who prefer OS X for tools such an Final Cut or Adobe Creative Suite.
Because the path is supported by Apple, just very poorly. It's one method of protesting for better support.
Aside from the fact that the question of whether you should cater to a professional class of users by building a professional class product (think video production) and the question of whether "we should all" be using such a product are entirely different things...
huh?
Nobody argued that this reflected the majority's need/wants. The majority want Macbooks, and they pretty much have them available to them. Apple occasionally thinks that it wants to serve such specialized minorities, as evidenced by the trashcan mac pro.
If you want a product, you need to convince the market to serve your needs. That's what's being done here. Stop believing that YOUR indignation is noteworthy, much less rational.
But the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, the one organization that wouldn't be deceived as to whether he was a licensed or unlicensed engineer, must be protected from his complaint?
So your point is that a "random" on the internet doesn't matter, but the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying should be able fine non-engineers for daring to bring engineering topics to their attention and claiming to the Board that they have an engineering education.
Which he sent to the state licensing board, which he is absolutely privileged to do by the First Amendment.
Mic drop. Licensed, practicing lawyer ouuuuuuuut...
Doesn't matter if it is considered part of the profession of engineering or not. It's First Amendment protected speech:
You don't have to be a licensed engineer to have a grievance concerning the length of a yellow light.
Congratulations. By analyzing "the law" on this issue and publishing your results you've engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. I'll be filing a complaint with your state bar so that they can fine you as well shortly...
The jet ski/ultralight part isn't enough to save you. You might want to refamiliarize yourself with all of Part 103, not merely the literal text:
You're free to use your "no license to fly" vehicle in the middle of nowhere, but you're not going to be flying it over a recreational lake where people are boating, fishing, swimming, hanging out at their lakefront property, etc.
103.15 Operations over congested areas.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.
Guess what, the FAA doesn't even like licensed pilots in certified aircraft cruising over recreational lakes. The moment the flying jet ski begins to regularly come into contact with regular jet skis, and everything else, you're going to see licensing added to part 103. Idiots and their drones made aircraft licensing mandatory for anything a bit more than half a pound (250 grams). A multi-hundred pound combination of aircraft and idiot will be a cinch to make GP's prediction come true.
You haven't made $93.8M, much less paid that amount in taxes, in your entire life. What it this "my" nonsense?
The notion that a piddly, five figure contribution to $3 trillion in federal tax revenue means that the the federal government should only do what each individual out of 300 million feels is appropriate needs to die in a fire.
It's not your tax dollars, and the amount attributable to your tax obligation to the federal government is 0.0033%, which, being extremely generous, means that you were indirectly the source of as much as $3.
I dislike DJT, but this is too much considering the reason why we bombed Syria. My tax payer dollars can pick up your three dollars, and you can suck a egg you heartless bastard.
You've apparently never rented residential property. Landlords always have access to personal information. First, you meet with them, or their manager, when you want to see the space. Then you fill out an application. Then the more savvy ones run a credit check, and potentially a litigation check to look for things like evictions, damage complaints, etc. They might even ask for a confirmation of your employment, to look for things like whether you can pay more than the first month's rent and deposit.
The company is going to be immune under the Telecom Act of 1996 (a.k.a. Communications Decency Act, section 230) unless the company itself puts prohibited questions in the applicant information. If you think that they haven't studied the Roommates.com litigation backwards and forwards, you're naive.
Yes. And since Shakespeare's day, pedants who fail to realize that English is not a prescriptive language, for example in the manner certain French insist upon imposing upon other French, will denigrate writers who are far better than they are (as well as everyone else) by citing rules made from whole cloth, usually in an attempt to structure English like Latin. This appears to make them feel superior.
Someone you've never heard of will, almost without fail, stake their self-professed expertise and declare that the authors, dictionaries, and other sources cited in those Wikipedia footnotes and the underlying primary research are simply wrong.
CONFORM! It's the only way that the AC can validate his (or her) choices in life. If everyone does the same thing, then of course that was the optimal thing to do.
As if discrimination in hiring isn't subject to "government regulations backlash".
I'm tempted to report you myself... it's not often that someone is stupid enough, even pseudononymously, to admit to a clear violation of the law in a manner that they cannot delete on a site that maintains logs...
Failing in the sense that Social Security still raises more money in taxes than it pays out as benefits?
Or failing in the sense that you "cons" are deathly afraid of they day that that tax surplus goes away (as planned) and you cannot spend every cent on a defense budget larger than the next 10 countries' combined spending?
My argument which was, what exactly?
Ah, yes... that "the business world has an over-abundance of confidence in where the US is heading at this point which are driving these numbers" is not supported by "these numbers."
Also, Jan + Feb 2015 > Jan + Feb 2017, so you're doubly wrong.
Hell yeah! We will completely ignore that monthly job gains were even higher in the last month of Obama's presidency, as reported in the summary, and even higher still in February 2016, which preceded the election. But wait, also the same thing in 2015, which preceded Trump's nomination. Bit of a dip in 2014, but even higher numbers in 2013.
This totally supports your argument, so long as you avoid thinking about anything connected to reality.
1-Month Net Change: All employees, thousands, total nonfarm, seasonally adjusted
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 211 286 130 197 226 162 122 261 190 212 258 47
2014 190 151 272 329 246 304 202 230 280 227 312 255
2015 234 238 86 262 344 206 254 157 100 321 272 239
2016 126 237 225 153 43 297 291 176 249 124 164 155
2017 238(P) 235(P)
Yeah! Wagner should take that operatic garbage back to Leipzig, and all right thinking people should only buy Cantata. Bach must be rolling over in his grave!
And get off my commons you hooligans!