We're now showing warnings – from both Google and charities – at the top of our search results for more than 13,000 queries
This actually shows one reason surveillance is inappropriate - my first impulse upon seeing something like this in a story is to try googling various "suspicious" terms to see how these warnings show up and what they consist of. Post Snowden I have been increasingly self censoring my searches in regards to news stories about illegal or even what would commonly be considered merely immoral content. I now have to assume that my past academic interests in various subjects may well have resulted in my presence on some watchlists and that I could be only a single google search away from a lifetime of "coincidental" police stops, "random" searches and other forms of harassment.
Woops looks like I mixed up crack with regular cocaine, pity it US government wouldn't do that (in the opposite direction), the sentences are still 18x higher for crack vs powder cocaine - and that's an improvement from the previous 100x.
What I was thinking of was neuroscientist, Dr Carl Hart, who referenced a 1914 New York Times editorial "Negro Cocaine Fiends Are New Southern Menace" which represented some of the racist hysteria that led to drug prohibition early on. You should look into him for more (and accurate) information about drugs and drug policy.
Actually drug laws were generally put in place in order to oppress minorities associated with them. You had crack to lock up the "Negro's" who were getting uppity after no longer being slaves, "Marijuana" (a new name for the corner store drug Cannabis) to go after Mexican workers "stealing" whites jobs and psychedelics in general to lock up those damn unpatriotic, anti-war hippies.
Any other professed reason for the war on drugs for the majority of proponents is a (extremely thin) smokescreen.
"Weapon - the term shall include ... cutting tools .... and shall include any item that is represented to be a weapon"
Or in other words "Weapon - the term shall include ... scissors .... and shall include any item that is represented to be scissors". It used to just be "don't run with scissors", now it appears you get a 10 day suspension or expulsion for simply holding scissors at any time (or anything that looks like scissors).
Exactly, if a police officer or any other government official breaks the law they should be the one to face the consequences just like and private citizen. Similarly if they break into the wrong house serving a warrant they should be treated exactly as if anyone else illegally broke into someone's house, being liable for trespass, breaking and entering, assault with regards to anyone they detain or threaten and murder if they kill anyone.
If ongoing works by the original creator of a character are not derivative works then neither are works created by other authors using those characters. Therefore these (non)derivative works can't be blocked by copyright - you can't have it both ways.
But we don't allow it because the Constitution says you can't do that.
The constitution was torn up long ago, they just put it through a shredder as well post September 11. Your federal government would just settle disputes between the states and help organise resistance to repel foreign invaders when and if necessary and pretty much nothing more if it actually followed the constitution. Constitutionally the US federal government should be tiny, one of the smallest governments around, but instead it is the largest and most powerful in the world.
It could almost be legitimate if it was an issue of parties happening in dense residential neighborhoods causing noise complaints... thing is if there's a noise complaint then the cops know where to go and don't need to be notified in advance - and if there's no noise (or similar) complaint then a 300+ person party isn't a problem.
Well it could have something to do with the fact that caffeine is more addictive than about half the illegal drugs out there, maybe they just want to be consistent and add it to the list - just say no to "drug paraphernalia"!
I believe people who have been convicted of lying to congress in the past have been sent to prison on occasion. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a response to a change.org petition requesting Holder be prosecuted?
Of course such a petition would most likely be ignored like all the other ones that said more than "We love Obama!" but it might help to get some media attention to those lies at least.
The computer program part is the complete opposite of the seed part:
another copy or adaptation of that computer program provide[d] that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program
If you replace "computer program" with "seed" then it would be allowed - obviously "a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the" seed - that's simply describing the whole process of growing plants - especially with seed crops.
Lets just assume for the sake of argument that the record labels arguments are correct: there is absolute proof that the accused downloaded $6.57 worth of songs and that it is the equivalent of theft.
Basically the real world equivalent of a kid stealing a drink and a pack of chips from a corner store and being caught on a HD security camera. Obviously the kid would have to pay cost of their stolen goods and I would suggest perhaps doubling the value as punishment - but if the kid admits their crime and pays up it should end there. If they decide to fight the charge and are then found guilty then they should clearly incur costs, but how much? If the store owner hires million dollar lawyers then that would be clearly unjust to force the kid to pay for them. I would suggest that the costs should bring the damages up to no more than triple value ie 300%, $19.71 in this case. Instead the alleged infringer is expected to pay 9385% in damages? How does this make any sense at all, even remembering that we are taking the accusers claims at face value in this case?
This is definitely a good thing. I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good to get some posters and/or t-shirts of a few of the bands I like, who's video clips I often watch on youtube. The reason I haven't so-far is that it's too much of a hassle to track down the artists site, find their store, sign up for a payment system, figure out international postage (if it's even avaliable) etc. If it's right there on youtube I'll definitely be much more likely to buy things - assuming they're reasonably priced of course.
Each group in this story can learn something from the other.
The music labels from the drug dealers: how to sell something people want to buy instead of trying to force them to buy what they don't want.
The drug dealers from the music labels: how to properly buy politicians, so your competitors get thrown in jail instead of you.
Actually from the sounds of things they're comparing it to fake chicken:
Judging of taste and texture will be performed by a panel of 10 PETA judges, who will sample the in vitro chicken prepared using PETA's own fried "chicken" recipe. The in vitro chicken must get a score of at least 80 when evaluated in order to win the prize.
I was liking the sound of it too but another of their conditions also makes me quite dubious about their honesty:
Manufacture the approved product in large enough quantities to be sold commercially, and successfully sell it at a competitive price in at least 10 states.
It would seem likely that a company would have to be quite some size to be selling in 10 states. They'd also likely be making 10's or even 100's of millions a year competing on an ethics standpoint (ie to vegetarians etc) without being able to "sell it at a competitive price" compared to "real" meat. And this needs to happen in 2 years to qualify for the award???