No, it isn't. If "None of the above" wins the election must be rerun and no-one who got less than (say, actual figure to be determined) 25% in the first go can stand again. Keep going until a reasonable candidate is presented and garners enough votes to win.
It could have been a queue waiting for a school bus that the Tesla hit. Teslas are big heavy cars moving fast, they are perfectly capable of killing a dozen or more people. An aircraft crash where everyone walks away still gets investigated.
The car should definitely automatically upload all the data in the system in the event of a crash, to a publicly owned server which can be accessed by all interested parties.
That the courts took account of who pays the penalty and when this dangerous maniac gets back to court the judge very strongly indicates that he should be prosecuted for the crime and then can be sent to jail. The local government and police unions can't serve time for their tame thugs.
Just needs another bounty law, allow anyone whose rights to access books the right, indeed duty, to sue anyone who seeks to abridge those rights, including parents being allowed to sue on behalf of their children
If you eat a cake you no longer have a cake. Therefore you cannot both have a cake and eat it, all the parts f the cake you eat are no longer cake. It is fashionable to try to poke holes in well established and commonly used language but it just makes the hole poker look silly. Just like those who always insist that double negatives are wrong. Language isn't pure maths, it is communication and the meaning of "have your cake and eat it" is absolutely clear.
The biggest stupidity here, seen from the civillised world, is WHY THE BLOODY HELL WOULD ANYONE EVER SEND A ROOKIE to reports of a disturbed man with a gun?
I realise this is because that is seen as routine and run of the mill in too much of the USA but handling a gun near other people, and especially other people with guns should only ever be a job for fully trained and qualified professionals.
Any component required to repair a device you own must be made available at an economic price. So if you put everything in one chip for a $1000 smart phone that part must be made available for, say, $300. Failure to do so would cancel the copyright protection on that part. When I buy a device I should own it and that means I should have the right to own it, a repair manual must be available and all parts available. It isn't a complicated law.
I self host my email, I also host mail for several other people. Sometimes I have problems, the latest being Spamhaus changing its rules but not telling me in the blacklisting what rule I had broken. Took me a day or two to find and fix. All the information was there, it took a few Google searches to find it.
You need to install SSL certificates, these are free and easy, you need to put the right strings into your DNS, fiddly but not hard, you need to make sure the relevant ports are blocked from outside intrusion, but you need to do that anyway. What exactly are the problems?
Just because something entails hours of work doesn't mean it should get copyright protection! If a copyright work is to be included in the law the state must pay for the work before including it. It is putting copyright n things that we are required to read that is absurd maximalism, laws can represent thousands of hours of work from hundreds or thousands of people and they do not get protection.
Why is the response from the judge, all this evidence must be tossed and I direct the prosecution to issue a warrant for the arrest of the officer on a charge of perjury. That the police and prosecution are not interested in upholding the law is terrible but well known, the fact that courts appear not to care about such major crime and about the obvious and utter contempt for the court is awful.
There is no compulsion to BBC funding. I have several friends without TV licences (and radio is provided free). TV licence is required to watch television programmes that are broadcast over old fashioned signals. If you do not receive any such programmes, and do not "walk around it by receiving the same broadcasts live over cable, satellite or Internet, you do not need a licence. If you exclusively watch programmes not broadcast and not made by the BBC no licence is needed.
That should be a "Die hard conservative" who believes in "a free market". In quotations those terms are magically transformed, the first to mean a right wing control freak and the second to mean a market entirely free for things that make me money or that support my point of view.
The difference is slight, in the same sense of slight as in the phrase "the Pacific Ocean is a slightly big puddle".
Of course US companies can ignore the EU if they want. The problem is that although the US economy is large, very large in fact, it is not the whole World's economy. The EU market is more or less exactly the same size as the US and US companies like money, that means they are not happy to throw away a market the same size as their own. US companies also worry that if they ignore a market and local start-ups move in they may prove more popular than the US versions in other countries, they do not want to compete with sites that have an enormous uncontested home market when trying to sell in all the other markets worldwide, would the UK, Australia, India, China, African nations, South American nations and even neighbours like Canada and Mexico prefer the US version or a version from a market that understands multinationalism and multilingualism?
Yes the EU is a horrible bureaucratic mess run by idiots who do not understand the Internet and want it to be something different, but then the US is a horribly nationalistic nation run by bureaucrats who have no regard for anyone else's laws or customs. With a national security service that believes it has the right to spy on anyone anywhere in the World and will not respect any international treaties or courts.
Both sides need to grow up and work on a compromise because seen from outside they are like a pair of 11 year old bullies demanding each others lunch money.
Trademarks and copyrights are intended to protect different things. Media companies have spent decades trying to get them to both protect everything, including things that neither of them are supposed to protect.
No, it isn't. If "None of the above" wins the election must be rerun and no-one who got less than (say, actual figure to be determined) 25% in the first go can stand again. Keep going until a reasonable candidate is presented and garners enough votes to win.
It could have been a queue waiting for a school bus that the Tesla hit. Teslas are big heavy cars moving fast, they are perfectly capable of killing a dozen or more people. An aircraft crash where everyone walks away still gets investigated. The car should definitely automatically upload all the data in the system in the event of a crash, to a publicly owned server which can be accessed by all interested parties.
Obeying the law
This is a simply shocking outcome! US police officers being required to obey the law? What next, will they start saying presidents must too?
About time
That the courts took account of who pays the penalty and when this dangerous maniac gets back to court the judge very strongly indicates that he should be prosecuted for the crime and then can be sent to jail. The local government and police unions can't serve time for their tame thugs.
Just needs another bounty law, allow anyone whose rights to access books the right, indeed duty, to sue anyone who seeks to abridge those rights, including parents being allowed to sue on behalf of their children
If you eat a cake you no longer have a cake. Therefore you cannot both have a cake and eat it, all the parts f the cake you eat are no longer cake. It is fashionable to try to poke holes in well established and commonly used language but it just makes the hole poker look silly. Just like those who always insist that double negatives are wrong. Language isn't pure maths, it is communication and the meaning of "have your cake and eat it" is absolutely clear.
The biggest stupidity here, seen from the civillised world, is WHY THE BLOODY HELL WOULD ANYONE EVER SEND A ROOKIE to reports of a disturbed man with a gun? I realise this is because that is seen as routine and run of the mill in too much of the USA but handling a gun near other people, and especially other people with guns should only ever be a job for fully trained and qualified professionals.
But that's the simple change that is needed
Any component required to repair a device you own must be made available at an economic price. So if you put everything in one chip for a $1000 smart phone that part must be made available for, say, $300. Failure to do so would cancel the copyright protection on that part. When I buy a device I should own it and that means I should have the right to own it, a repair manual must be available and all parts available. It isn't a complicated law.
Errrmmmm self hosting problems?
I self host my email, I also host mail for several other people. Sometimes I have problems, the latest being Spamhaus changing its rules but not telling me in the blacklisting what rule I had broken. Took me a day or two to find and fix. All the information was there, it took a few Google searches to find it. You need to install SSL certificates, these are free and easy, you need to put the right strings into your DNS, fiddly but not hard, you need to make sure the relevant ports are blocked from outside intrusion, but you need to do that anyway. What exactly are the problems?
Just because something entails hours of work doesn't mean it should get copyright protection! If a copyright work is to be included in the law the state must pay for the work before including it. It is putting copyright n things that we are required to read that is absurd maximalism, laws can represent thousands of hours of work from hundreds or thousands of people and they do not get protection.
And that's the REALLY worrying thing
Why is the response from the judge, all this evidence must be tossed and I direct the prosecution to issue a warrant for the arrest of the officer on a charge of perjury. That the police and prosecution are not interested in upholding the law is terrible but well known, the fact that courts appear not to care about such major crime and about the obvious and utter contempt for the court is awful.
BBC funding compulsory?
There is no compulsion to BBC funding. I have several friends without TV licences (and radio is provided free). TV licence is required to watch television programmes that are broadcast over old fashioned signals. If you do not receive any such programmes, and do not "walk around it by receiving the same broadcasts live over cable, satellite or Internet, you do not need a licence. If you exclusively watch programmes not broadcast and not made by the BBC no licence is needed.
You think anyone at a phone company will understand the phrase "marketing humility"?
That should be a "Die hard conservative" who believes in "a free market". In quotations those terms are magically transformed, the first to mean a right wing control freak and the second to mean a market entirely free for things that make me money or that support my point of view. The difference is slight, in the same sense of slight as in the phrase "the Pacific Ocean is a slightly big puddle".
And then ...
The judge would send a report to the prosecution authorities asking for action on perjury and take action him or herself for contempt of court.
If you name the country in French
It fits the hats perfectly!
Another little American ...
Of course US companies can ignore the EU if they want. The problem is that although the US economy is large, very large in fact, it is not the whole World's economy. The EU market is more or less exactly the same size as the US and US companies like money, that means they are not happy to throw away a market the same size as their own. US companies also worry that if they ignore a market and local start-ups move in they may prove more popular than the US versions in other countries, they do not want to compete with sites that have an enormous uncontested home market when trying to sell in all the other markets worldwide, would the UK, Australia, India, China, African nations, South American nations and even neighbours like Canada and Mexico prefer the US version or a version from a market that understands multinationalism and multilingualism? Yes the EU is a horrible bureaucratic mess run by idiots who do not understand the Internet and want it to be something different, but then the US is a horribly nationalistic nation run by bureaucrats who have no regard for anyone else's laws or customs. With a national security service that believes it has the right to spy on anyone anywhere in the World and will not respect any international treaties or courts. Both sides need to grow up and work on a compromise because seen from outside they are like a pair of 11 year old bullies demanding each others lunch money.
Trademark and copyright
Trademarks and copyrights are intended to protect different things. Media companies have spent decades trying to get them to both protect everything, including things that neither of them are supposed to protect.
How much evidence do you want? He placed two idiotic statements in the article.
No he's the one making idiotic statements!