All speech is free, if you agree with everything I think And never have opinions of your own, Then any day you'll have your say and I shan't even blink You'll find that perfect tolerance is shown, But if instead you use your head and think things for yourself, I shall ensure a large policeman calls. True liberty applies to me, all else stays on the shelf, No other rights pertain within these walls. One Man One Vote, I am that man, I do these things because I can!
If the student's name is to be made public for playing a stupid prank then the school principal, the school head of IT and the teacher in question must all be named too so we can see what sort of incompetent idiots are in charge of educating young Americans. We could then start a couple of watch lists "People who should never be allowed to teach or work in contact with young people" and "People who must never be allowed to work in any way connected with law enforcement" This could also be a shot in the arm for the American paper ink and pen manufacturing industries ...
What is REALLY worrying is that had this guy shot an unarmed teenager in a hooded jacket who was walking down a street after dark rather than having a photograph taken with a celebrity he'd be in the clear!
As a British subject I strongly object to the University of Kentucky infringing on our will known and historically important UK mark. We are quite capable of our own stupidity without someone else trying to usurp our interests. Where do we go to sue ...
Science almost never says "this is true" that isn't how it works. Science works the other way about, you make an hypothesis based on evidence and then you attempt to disprove it. Most people however are not scientists they want to know if x is x and y is y so journalists, being people selling their views to people like to say "Scientists tell us ..."
The reason it is vital that papers are available for everyone to read is that the paper should contain the evidence and the reasoning so you can judge for yourself.
"That does not seem like a particularly intelligent way to govern or to legislate."
I've never yet in all my reading of history come across an example of any state finding an intelligent way to legislate. People in power, on the whole, tend to act in their own perceived interest, and they cannot believe anyone else does otherwise.
I want a separate plumbers' copyright, every time someone new comes to a house and uses a tap or the loo they should make a payment to the plumber that installed it. Further, you should not be allowed to use the facilities the plumber installed for anything new without paying. Cooking a new dish? The cooker installer should get a royalty, reading a new book after sunset? That's money for the electrician, before that, pay the glazier!
As I understand it this is not a court decision (as yet anyway) merely a bureaucrat's idea of what should be done. The original decision isn't a ood one, but isn't actually anything like as bad as originally painted, in fact if implemented correctly it would merely substitute one imbalance for another. This new ruling on the other hand is incontrovertibly bad, not only China and North Korea have terrible laws that could close the Internet, US anti-gambling laws, Islamic anti-drinking, Ugandan or Russian anti-homosexual and many more.
I would impose it via copyright law. Simply not allow enforcement of copyright unless the conditions are met.
The rule would not allow anyone to sell copyright software merely to adequately maintain software they already own. If companies wish to keep their sourcecode secret they merely have to keep maintaining it. Allowing copyright on secrets is crazy in any case, the point of copyright is to encourage the proliferation of knowledge.
For software a 14 year limit before you can fix a security threat renders the software useless. My proposal would not need any change to copyright terms and would not affect any non-functional copyright material. I do not see why anyone should be allowed to sell anything while refusing to allow its new owners to repair it if it breaks.
All software to be sold with either source code and rights to self maintain or a functioning security and service environment. As soon the company that provided the software ceases to provide adequate security and efficacy maintenance it becomes legal for anyone else who wishes to do so.
That should ensure that enforced obsolescence is fightable. As an extension the same idea could be applied to hardware ...
I don't remember the case but I'm pretty sure the English Courts (means England and Wales but not necessarily Scotland and Northern Ireland) have ruled that an EULA has no effect if there was no option to decline, and stopping the machine working would definitely count as no option. So will be interesting to see how this plays out outside the "land of the free"