you get the chance to reread the two very specific instances where i think it is dangerous.
*Hint: neither of them were flashing the vehicle in front of you, which is mandatory to inform them you are a douche, and will probably be wielding the vehicle as such.
I do not know if there is any recourse for someone who makes an inflammatory comment on a site, and then expends law enforcement resources towards investigating that comment.
But please, just this once, give them all the information you have on this poster. I think you will soon see "I thought you supported anonymous speech" diatribes from that IP.
--thus concludes my 10 minute investigation.
Dazzling lights laws certainly have their place.
If he was flashing his brights at oncoming motorists at night, that is not helpful in the least, and quite hazardous.
Likewise, if he is turning lights off and on at night, that is equally hazardous, though moreso for himself.
If it was the middle of a bright sunny day and his lights flicker, I see no danger in that.
An explosive investigation by Der Spiegel found that Yahoo provided Chinese authorities with access to emails from journalists, and the snooping resulted in the same journalists being sent to prison camps.
....you are a tad bit late as it is not their first nor their most vulgar display of this nature. I would be more concerned with who gets blind carbon copies of the emails they decide are "suspicious".
Do you also think that the guys who founded Napster should be personally liable for what Napster was found guilty of?
Fair question, but I do not know the full details of the Napster case. Bringing an file sharing application to market, that is then used for nefarious purposes is not the same as extorting money from individuals (and working the courts through very shady legal means).
However, if the courts deemed it was Napster's intent, then I would have no issue with them tarballing the source code and offering it for free download. That would seem comparable, but probably defeat the purpose.
I say every person in the operation is liable. In your preferred scenario they have paid each other with all the money collected, declared bankruptcy, and walked. In my hopes, they all have individually named class action lawsuits; and each catch all the hell they imposed.
You do notice the little icon next to your name staying the same, regardless of the name vandalia, clarksburgresident, or sherman cahal.
it makes the conversation seem contrived when you further it yourself under different monikers.
Im with this line of thought. Please further explain how he holds the copyright to pictures taken while trespassing. From the post:
In 2010, contractors for the Foundation removed metal piping and heating units throughout the buildings for money in order to jump start further repairs to the Waldo.
Unfortunately, it seems that the recession has led to little to no work being done on the Waldo.
so, its not exactly abandoned and he may be (i cant get them to load) showing pictures the reflect the 100k worth of repairs to the roof in a poor light, hampering further investment.
a single letter domain name with an alliterative TLD wasnt appealing enough...it must be piracy...i mean CONSpiracy. I would include their lawsuit against Wall Street to give it some evil corporate trading substance.
They are quite specific in many mechanical aspects of the device and moreover, they actually have functioning devices. If any one implementation of anything in this device is patentable, wouldnt only patenting a single application (this case being in a costume as described) actually help the cause?
You want phone carriers to stop patenting every little feature, but yet that is exactly what the mechanical engineer would have to do if he cant just patent his 'costume'.
It is the Orders Section, maybe they should also have a separate opinion section. Though in the first sentence the court was nice enough to note they were including opinions and orders.
Seems the berating would be better served when publicly filing his ruling against them, rather than midstream where being all wordy is more likely to end up as a perceived bias based on technicalities, or other grounds for appeal.
Which one needs context? the homicide by strangling or the sexual abuse of a child?
You can pick nits, but I find great logic in wanting 100% lighter sentences for any amount of filesharing than for either of the above, under any circumstances.
Do I get to hold the USPS responsible for delivering me canadian pharmaceutical advertisements, or can only the government do that? because i get them about once a month.
Glik sued the officers who arrested him
something tells me LEOs will start to care very much when courts are awarding damages in individual civil suits for such behavior.
the patent should be for the practical application, not for the idea of a practical application.
Otherwise I should get to patent the idea of patenting the automation of manual processes.
you should patent your server misconfiguration...
and how do non-practicing entities do anything you described in your diatribe? They are not trying to compete, they have no employees, and are only commercializing the patent.
Injunctions (...because thats whats needed to bring sense /sarc) would be for those actually constructing something worthwhile, because for the trolls its more profitable to sue them than stop them.
You think the majority of people buy Trent Reznor's music because he connects with fans?
ummm... no, they buy all the other Null Corporation branded material and products because he connects with fans. They download his music for free.
Is there a physical good that can be used to represent the type of market you describe? While it is well versed (and im a huge fan of properly defended opposing viewpoints), I am at a loss to think of any actual substance to back it.
Selling ad space = paying the creator multiple times for a single physical good?
Rest assured that discrepancy will not be overcome with subtlety.
is it the venue, or the entity renting the venue, that has to have the proper licensing (or both)?
And is there a point (or points) at which liability transfers parties?
"but runs long on hyperbolic...."
That is exactly how I know I'm reading a Cushing post.