From the NJ AG's "screw you" letter they want information regarding "whether the Bitcoin code was present on websites owned and/or operated in the State or visited by New Jersey consumers."
Presumably the EFF can quote from their earlier letter. The one the AG is responding to: - "Tidbit's code has never been functional and is incapable of mining for bitcoins" - "Tidbit's code is not functional and unable to mine for bitcoins at all"
Nice to know the AG read the EFF's letter before responding.
Makes sense, thanks. Although (or because?) I'm a native english speaker my grip of grammar - adverbs, etc - isn't what it should be
Although I would comment that a burglar is one who burgles, in a similar manner to a fighter is one who fights - I haven't (yet) heard of people fighterizing ;)
Agree that there's no universal "right" way of speaking English - only the right way for a given dialect, such as UK / US / Australian / etc - eg colour / color. Presumably the situation is the same for European / American spanish.
On a similar vein, what's with the word "burglarized"? How does it differ from plain old "burgled"? I've seen it cropping up increasingly frequently in American English and it seems to be a case of inventing a new longer word for no real reason?
Same goes for "terroristic". Surely terroristic threat = terrorist threat. There's no need for the "ic"?
"[The IRA] was known for bombing a shopping center, killing six and injuring 90"
Um, that's probably the least of their activities. Thats like saying "Al Qaeda is known for bombing the US embassy in Kenya".
The Provisional IRA (one part of the various IRA groups) has a much more active history than that. They were responsible for multiple bombings, including assassinating a member of the royal family, an assassination attempt on the British PM (by way of blowing up the hotel where her party's annual conference was held), terrorist attacks on in the UK, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, and were involved with operations in the Americas (eg Columbia) and the middle east.
I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional expert so I was wondering if there was a clear definition somewhere of what is speech and what isn't? I'm guessing it has to be decided by the courts?
The reason I ask is it seems that there's an argument that a photographer can deny service since what they do counts as speech, but a diner couldn't. I can see that there's not much "speech" in getting a burger, however there's a multitude of jobs on the speech to processing scale
Could a lecturer refuse to teach? They physically speak to teach people. How about if the lecturer was in say political science where it's more about the professor's opinion than say maths where it's hard fact, so not so much the professor's "speech"
Musicians? party organisers? artists? like photographers they try and come up with new products to fit their client's desires.
Does the line get drawn when the job involves creativity? In which case you could make an argument for lots of jobs to come under free speech - basically anything which isn't following a rigid checklist, so anyone offering a more bespoke service than you get at a macdonalds.
Um, the CEOs aren't there to represent your interests. They are there to represent their company's interests. There's only an intersection to the extent that they need to pander to your interests to gain your business.
Now your senator however, they *should* be representing your interests ...
There was a recent case of a small hotel owner trying to turn away gay couples, or at least deny them a double room, on the grounds of their religious belief.
They lost their case, and aren't allowed to let their religious beliefs impact their business.
Basically anti-discrimination trumps freedom of religion when it comes to offering services to the public it seems.
Although as others have commented - I sure wouldn't want someone photographing my wedding unless they wanted to be there. So many ways for the photos not to turn out properly without anything obvious being done which would open the photographer up to being sued. No way I would want to risk that!
Agreed, having paid for a temporary licence you shouldn't complain when it's revoked.
The problem is most people don't realise that they've only bought a temporary licence.
Partly because they're used to buying physical goods and partly because the online provider makes statements such as "watch and re-watch as often as you like" rather than "watch and re-watch as often as we like".
I'd like a magnetic domain though, where can I get one?
What she's offering in exchange for a meal is: - 2 facebook posts stating where they ate - 5 instagram photos during the meal - 2 newsletter adverts - 1 listing in dining guide
The first two are factual - basically "if we eat at your restaurant, we'll say that we did". The next two are normal business transactions, the restaurant could shell out $ to buy an advert and a mention in the listing, or they could pay by providing the blogger with a meal
She hasn't stated that she will provide a good review, just that she will make some factual statements, and will take a meal as payment for advertising space.