The lack of knowledge, both for the layman trying to gain an insight, as well as from our lack of understanding the complexities of the genome is on par with making a howto guide available on how to build a nuclear device on the kitchen table and not expecting that some of the hactivists polute their environment with nuclear waste.
Horsefeathers. The effect of seeking insight and getting it wrong is unnecessary worry and stress on myself and perhaps my family. The effect of nuclear waste is severe damage to the environment and other people. I own my body and my mind. Not you, not the state. It's perfectly fine to be concerned with the effects of the wrong interpretation of poorly understood information on my life and well being. It's not fine to use the coercive power of the state to prevent me from obtaining that information because you think it's not a wise course of action for me to take.
And when it isn't about probabilities -- if it is certain that you will develop a disease, possibly a devastating one -- there's a strong argument that counselling needs to be made available when that information is given to the person affected.
No, there isn't. There's a strong argument that a counseling would be beneficial. You can even say that there's a justifiable requirement that a doctor provide counseling if they disclose the information to an individual. But to claim that there's a strong argument that the FDA can actively take steps to prevent an individual from gaining that information on their own unless counseling is provided is horse crap.
Finally, someone gets it. This is a case of lawyer-speak running wild, but they're not trying to say you can't remember the information. They're saying (or at least trying to say) you can't take the test, memorize some or all of the questions, and then pass them on to other test takers. There's a huge market for test questions on all sorts of qualification exams. Want to pass a test? Pay a membership to one of many websites that specialize in distributing the test questions, study the questions enough to recognize the correct answer, even if you have no real understanding of what the question is asking or why that particular answer is correct, then go pass the test. This devalues the certification and puts unqualified people in positions that should go to those who've taken the time to actually learn and understand the material. Yes, it's a stupid way to phrase it but the intent is reasonable.
QUOTE A Tasmanian aboriginal language center demanded the removal of the English Wikipedia article on 'palawa kani', claiming copyright over the entirety of the language. We refused to remove the article because copyright law simply cannot be used to stop people from using an entire language or to prevent general discussion about the language. Such a broad claim would have chilled free speech and negatively impacted research, education, and public discourse—activities that Wikimedia serves to promote. END QUOTE
I don't see that. First, you can always make an argument that money spent should be spend elsewhere. Arguably, money spent to provide 'net access would be better spent providing food to those who are starving. Huge numbers of people don't have access to safe drinking water. I don't think anyone has the right to criticize where someone else donates their money.
Second, I'm not sure what company you're pointing at in reference to looking like the "good guy." To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia IS a good guy. I'd perhaps quibble with some of the editorial choices but disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they're wrong and thus "bad." Wikepedia is a non-profit and they provide a very valuable service.
If he wanted Jim Clapper to commit a felony, and reveal something that was appropriately classified, Senator Wyden should have acted like a man and revealed it himself, rather than trying to "trap" a career public servant into what for him would be a criminal act.
So Wyden should have been a man - like Edward Snowden? I see all the praise you're lauding on him for his actions.
What about the cases where info from FAA was fed to cops and the FBI with instructions to conceal the source of the info? Wouldn't that also be a case that proves the lie of the statement to the Supreme Court?
Yeah, but you're missing the big point. (For a rarity, it appears Mike did too.) Fee-shifting is entirely in the control of the judges. The whole point of this article, written by one of the chief judges who caused this whole mess, is to say "Yeah, there's a small problem here but it's not that big a deal and besides, we already have the tools to fix it. There's no need for any pesky additional legislation or for Congress to get involved. We got this. Nothing to see here, now move along."
That argument is essentially the same as saying that TV viewers shouldn't be able to skip commercials when they DVR and they can't leave the room or mute the TV or change the channel when commercials are playing live.
No, it isn't. Google isn't forcing you to view ads on your Android device. They're not saying you can't avoid them. They're simply refusing to assist you in doing so.
While I'd have no issue with the Defend to the Death app, it's really not appropriate here. The right to free speech is simply that - the right to speak. It's not a right to force me to listen. It's not a right to force Google or anyone else to publish the speech. If Google kicks those apps out of the Playstore, it is not in any way, shape, form or fashion a violation of the app writer's freedom of speech. Google can certainly decide to be neutral and allow such content and I have no issue with that at all. But they're under no obligation to do so, and free speech rights aren't involved in the issue.
"Those would get rid of the reason to pirate if you didn't already have to have HBO through the cable companies. With it being pirated so much, how much money would they make if they offered it to those pirates at a low cost? And lower cost doesn't have to mean lower profits."
Would they make more money? I honestly don't know. Cable companies pay HBO to carry their programming. That's because of the situation being complained about - if you want to watch HBO, you subscribe to the cable company. Having HBO drives people to the cable companies, so they pay HBO. If HBO offers their shows directly to viewers, they're making themselves less valuable to the cable companies because fewer people will be driven to subscribe to cable in order to get HBO. So the cable companies will either stop paying HBO or will pay them less. Will the revenue from direct purchases be sufficient to overcome the loss of revenue from the cable companies? I have no idea. But it isn't a slam dunk case that it would.
In short, what HBO and the cable companies are doing are creating artificial scarcities. That does two things. It drives people to pirate, and it drives up the cost of legal purchase. The second effect may very well be enough that, from a purely money-making perspective, it outweighs the first.
People pirate for three major reasons: 1. They have no money to buy your product 2. They don't value your product enough to pay for it 3. They're freeloaders who won't pay for any digital goods.
4. They have money and they value your product but you've either not made it available to them or you've gone out of your way to make the available version unattractive with DRM, unskipable lead-in trailers, etc.
Some may argue that it's "not new" to reuse someone else's character, but it's hard to support that, when you realize the number of wonderfully creative works that have been made by building on characters created by others.
To anyone who'd say that, I'd just point out that that Shakespeare guy was a profoundly uncreative fellow. He stole everyone of those plays that are supposed to be so good from earlier stories.
If the account is a company name or includes a reference to the company name or product, then the actual account should almost certainly stay with the company. However, the tweeter should certainly be able to tell his followers "I'm leaving company A. If you want to follow me, my new account will be blah."