The chart points out that cell phones produce no ionizing radiation and do not cause cancer. It's directly under the blue cart, you know, the one that represents a microscopic fraction of a percent of a potentially fatal dose of radiation.
As for electromagnetic fields, they also do nothing to the human body. Not all that long ago this same exact debate was being had thanks to people thinking they had healing abilities. The same arguments were had, electromagnetic fields have no affect on the human body. The Placebo Effect has more affect on the body.
Isn't half the point of Facebook uploading images and videos so other people can see? I know they already pick and choose what updates people see, but are they really willing to remove half of what people use Facebook for?
So... Facebook doesn't even conform to the rules of Facebook's internet.
The rules specifically state: "If websites are found to contain any of the above post-implementation, we will block them until we can confirm that the content has been removed."
So just for clarification: If you're a white male, sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and we'll tell you when you can fight for anyone's rights. Throw some classism in there and you've got the trifecta.
That's seriously your argument? He said rude things that might have been wrong so it's perfectly fine to arrest him? Damn, dude. You might claim that Obama has dictatorial trappings, but you are the kind of person that allowed it.
Oh, anything he might have done does enter into it. They aren't saying what he could have done to get a harsher punishment, they're doing as an emotional plea.
If they just said what he did and nothing else, there would be public backlash. Why should a student face felony charges for a stupid prank? Throwing words like "hacking" and saying what he could have done adds an emotional layer that blinds people.
No, but the assets used in the game do fall under copyright. Using those assets in a video is a legal gray area, should be fair use, but Nintendo doesn't want to admit it and few can/will fight it. Hell, Google doesn't want to deal with it. Easier just to bow than to fight.
Lots of Youtubers have had this discussion before. There are no competitors to Youtube. All other streaming sites are too exclusive (Vimeo) or too specialized (everyone else). The only other option for most people on Youtube is to host it yourself (too expensive) or just not upload. In this situation "just do without" is not the correct answer.
Google is the only one willing to deal with relatively unrestricted uploading. And the only reason they're given as much "freedom" as they are is because of the Content ID system. If they didn't have that, they would be up to their eyes in lawsuits. The problem is not Youtube, the problem is further up.
While copyright could come into this, I would assume that most pictures uploaded were taken by the person uploading them. That was kinda the point of the website. You get pissed at an ex, you upload nude pictures you took while you were together. The DMCA wouldn't apply to most of the content.
I don't think that qualifies as an FCC or FTC violation, definitely not in the same way as AT&T. The fine print is there before you sign the contract. Hell, their sales people seem perfectly willing to tell people about this limitation. Probably because they offer "Truly Unlimited" for more than twice the price.
AT&T got in trouble by changing the fine print after the contract was signed and without letting the other party know.
Yes, I know that the word "cant" has become fluid over the years, but for the sake of this argument I'm assuming the cops will actually follow the law. The cops can't punish someone for reporting a crime they stumbled upon.
Just like how the cops "can't" shoot you when not resisting arrest. Just because they can't doesn't mean they won't.
Yeah, I somehow doubt that the cops can slam you if you report it as soon as you find it.
It would be the same debate if a car rental place found a bag of crack in a car they were cleaning out. Possession is illegal (big enough bag and you can get slammed for "Intent to distribute"), but destruction of evidence is illegal to. But you can't get in trouble if you just drop everything and call the cops.
But this kind of thing was happening a few years ago.
The problem is the FBI only seem to be able to find incompetent people who would never be able to do things on their own. Seriously, this person couldn't find a copy of a magazine in this day and age? A magazine I'm sure the writers want spread around as much as possible.
A quick Google search can confirm that stocks dropped after the Title II announcement, but it didn't happen on Feb. 25th, it happened on March 2nd (or 3rd, or 9th depending on who you look at). Unless you're trying to tell me that it took a few days for stock traders to notice the news and the rise in stock prices after was just a delayed affect from something else. But I think that the general drop in prices (and eventual climb back for two of the three) was related to something else.
Or it could be what I've been thinking for a vary long time while watching the stock market: Stock prices are bullshit and should not be used as evidence for anything.
"Mary Hennessy Jones, who heads up fifteen primary schools and one secondary school in Cheshire, England."
So 16 total schools will be affected by this idiocy. And yeah, I expect that the police would just shrug it off, but she's still trying to scare parents into doing what she believes in the moral thing.
Personally I hope whoever is in charge of the police sends here a nice little letter detailing the punishment for filing false police reports.
Well, there's someone who needs to be fired but is never going to be because people think too highly of themselves and too little of their fellow parents. They won't speak up because they don't know the person beside them, so they instantly think the worst.