It's difficult to estimate the percentage of stranger sexual abuse of children because we can't know what incidents aren't reported.
But a reasonable proxy is abductions. It's not an exact analogy, but it's somewhat informative. Children taken by strangers or slight acquaintances represent only one-hundredth of 1 percent of all reported missing children.
"Don't sign the paperwork if you aren't going to read it."
That's nearly worthless advice.
Reading the paperwork won't inform you about the implications of the terms. Permission to share information "with your doctor, healthcare providers, hospital and other parties" covers... everyone.
That is close to my reaction as well: why would a judge sign off on a settlement that was clearly so far out of line of what was reasonable, and didn't reflect the reality of the situation.
The term "Scouts" and "Scouting" have been used by the Boy Scouts for decades. They were the broad terms covering Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Explorers and Sea Scouts. So it's not a new use of the term.
There is a bit of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" going on here. There were increasingly frequent minor issues because of the gender discrimination. Traditional activities such as marching in parades or using government facilities would become unexpectedly complicated because of broadly worded 'equal opportunity' laws. The same rule that was intended to keep the KKK from marching in the 4th of July parade or reserving the picnic area of a park for a rally applied to a Boy Scout troop that didn't allow girls full membership.
The Boy Scouts took a major step forward in eliminating gender discrimination. It was a divisive issue, and the change cost them a huge amount of support. The LDS (Mormon) church used to a major charter sponsor of scout troops. In May 2018 they announced they were eliminating all support. That means that 20% of scout troops will need to find new sponsors or dissolve.
Presumably the police provide the cash for the purchase, and take the drugs into evidence.
It should be obvious how to make a quick, safe profit. The police aren't going to care that the informant turned over low-grade heavily cut drugs, as long as it tests positive.
I'm not as sure as you are about the NEC.
The first part of the analysis explicitly differentiates this case from the situation where externally written code is incorporated by reference.
Most companies have no ethics and like money.
It's why "corporations are people" is fundamentally flawed. People generally have a broad view of what they want out of government and society.
If you lose 20% of 100 you have 80.
If you gain 10% on that, you have 88.
If you have a 50% loss then a 50% gain, you are only back to 75.
The argument (well, one credible argument) for breaking them up is their dominance in advertising services.
If you want to place an online advertisement, you will very likely to be going to either Google or Facebook.
However there is vigorous competition between the two, which is a good argument that neither has monopoly power.
I'm hoping that "the press" rolls this up, right to the doorsteps of Comcast et al.
No doubt they are several intermediaries away from the people that submitted the bogus comments, but paying PR companies to submit fake comments should be treated just like hiring a hit man -- a conspiracy charge on top of the crime itself.
I wonder if Michael Francois Bujaldon has managed to eliminate the name Michael Francois Bujaldon from being mentioned in relation to a lawsuit with Michael Francois Bujaldon as a party.
I doubt that Michael Francois Bujaldon has accomplished his goal. Certainly someone searching for Michael Francois Bujaldon will find articles mentioning Michael Francois Bujaldon or at least comments talking about the Michael Francois Bujaldon lawsuit.
Corporations want to source and sell into a global market for their goods, but they want to segment the market for higher profit.
As a worker I'm supposed to compete against low wage labor, but my $160 textbook costs $6 in India. (The only difference: lower quality paper.)
I've certainly had CDs and DVDs go bad.
Most of them were small scale recordings from local bands (probably CD-Rs with ink jet printing), but I've had commercially pressed ones that have had the aluminum layer delaminate (?!) or apparently corrode.
I've heard people claim "that can't happen", but am I going to believe them or my eyes?
I have to wonder how that talking point plays to the public.
They are paying $200 to Comcast as a monopoly, and $10 to Netflix in a competitive market. Comcast claiming that Netflix isn't paying its way rings pretty hollow.
I think that it much more closely reflects the mindset of Comcast executives: "we are providing the highway, we should get the tolls plus a cut of the sales of all the businesses reachable by the highway".
Investigative reporters providing a misleading representation of themselves is a long-standing pattern. The plaintiff might try to argue fraud from the misrepresentation, but it's unlikely to go anywhere.
I do wonder if they have thought this through to the trial. Cohen will be taking the stand. Perhaps there will be a jury. Perhaps cameras in the courtroom. Clips will be shown repeatedly. Late night talk shows will be covering the highlights. Internet memes will abound.
Federal preemption in 3..2..1
Of course the big ISPs have created their own problem, and federal rules that preempt state regulations will now take much longer to implement, and be subject to much stronger court challenges.
C-SPAN is a broadcaster, not a news organization. They just run the cameras, they don't have reporters or ask questions.
Have you ever even met children?
They are influenced by their upbringing, but they have strong, unique personalities from early in life. You can screw them up, but you generally can't fix them.
How is that a flaw?
Saying bad things about a person or corporation known to be litigious will not force them to file a bogus lawsuit. They are choosing to abuse the courts to punish someone, and now doing so won't work as well.
If the situation (and speech) is truly defamatory, then anti-SLAPP legislation wouldn't apply.
My first reaction was "that is a lot of research time and money for an easily-decided case".
But that assumption was belied by the extensive judicial review when affirming the decision. If it was that close of a call, and fought that strongly, the research was worthwhile. Halbig's own appeal showed that the hours were justified.