Spying aside, I will support the notion that people need to get their heads out of those damn phones and look where they're going.
Walking to lunch today, I was run into twice by idiots who were too busy texting to look where they were walking and one moron nearly walked into an intersection against the light and barely avoided being turned into road pizza, again had his face buried in his screen instead of eyes up, looking where he was going.
> Someone will find a way to call 9-1-1 if there's a real > emergency.
No kidding. And honestly, if you're in an active shooter situation and you're actually in danger (as opposed to someone outside who is just hearing the gun fire), then the absolute *last* thing you should be fucking around with is your goddam cell phone. You either need to be evacuating most riki tik, or, if you're trapped inside, deciding the optimal way to counter-attack the shooter.
> I've never once actually seen the mythical "disruptive > cellphone yakker" that everyone loves to wring their > hands about. That sort of thing could almost lead one to > believe that he doesn't exist
Yes, because your personal experience is the objective benchmark by which reality is judged.
The one I patronize doesn't allow babies at all. For movies of any rating. If you're too young to understand language, you're too young to be in a movie theater.
They're also very good about policing people who talk or otherwise disrupt the movie. They "profile" customers and if, for example, a huge gaggle of loud and chatty teen girls shows up for movie, they'll pop in occasionally during the film to make sure they're not f'ing it up for everyone else, either by talking amongst themselves, or using their phones.
That theater is all about maximizing the customer's experience, and for that reason it gets all my business.
> Elbakyan, perhaps unsurprisingly, feels the new domain > doesn't violate the injunction. As a Russian citizen, > Elbakyan is free to raise dubious legal arguments.
There's nothing dubious about it. As a Russian citizen operating a foreign web site, she *isn't* subject to court orders from New York judges.
Depending on the status of international agreements, an infringement of a US copyright might be actionable in Russia, but Elsevier would have to sue her in Russia and get an order from a Russian court to address that. New York courts have no jurisdiction over her whatsoever.
> It's called the internet. The website is not specifically blocked in Australia, > thus it is available to Australian people.
Putting a website up on the internet does not make me subject to the laws of every nation from which it can be viewed.
If it did, I could be prosecuted by Germany for putting a swastika on a web page; I could be prosecuted by Saudi Arabia for blasphemy if I say Islam isn't the one true religion; I could be prosecuted by the UK for "being racially offensive" for cracking an off-color joke.
I don't lose the my right to free speech in *this* country merely because I conduct my speech on the internet.
> but smugly standing behind US laws isn't the safest bet.
Again, I will point out that even if he prevails in Australia and obtains a judgement, that's only half the battle. A foreign judgement must be submitted to a US court for enforcement and collection. In this case, if he submits his foreign judgement, the US court will rule it's unenforceable per the SPEECH Act and he will be left with no way to legally collect his money from the US resident/citizen.