Given that Canada is ALREADY facing a $500 million claim from Eli Lilly over 'potential lost price gouging opportunities', I can't help but wonder if this study takes the costs of ISDS settlements into account in coming up with the tiny net gains. If they're not already counted in there, the net effect could actually be negative.
This reminds me of the Arthur C. Clarke story about beaming propaganda-laced soft porn from satellites....
In said court, anyone would also be able to seek compensation for any damages resulting from invalid takedown orders.
Anyone. Any damages.
If he had just followed the nice policeman's instructions and 'confessed' that he really meant shooting fellow students, then everything would have turned out OK. That he insisted on telling the truth.... Well, that's his own fault, now isn't it?
The Province of Ontario just announced that it has conducted a study which shows conclusively that merely having the screen of an electronic device visible to you causes sufficient distraction to degrade your driving as much as if you were drunk. Consequently, the police will now charge you if the screen of a device is visible to you. Period. And clearly, there can be no appeal of this; if you're stopped, you're guilty.
Here's EVERYTHING you need to know about this study and the new law: the cops and their laptop computers are exempt.
"That seems like asking the NSA "can this system be abused?" and the NSA saying.....
[MontyPython] "Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not at all! No, no, no. No. No. Well, yes. A bit. A little bit. Well, quite a bit, actually. In fact, almost totally." [/MontyPython]