It is difficult to avoid that fifth glyph. I fail to grasp why I must forgo using it. But if you insist, I'll do as you instruct.
After Eldred v Ashcroft established that works that have already fallen into the public domain can be reinstated (and republishers can be sued for continuing to have the once-public works in their catalogues!) it's clear that the law simply elevates the bottom feeders above all legitimate uses.
Nope. The 'zygote' is the fertilized egg; the spermatozoon and ovum are 'gametes'. The 'blastocyst' is the state after the zygote begins mitosis. In turn, it's not usually called an 'embryo' until at least implantation, or gastrulation and formation of the neural crease. The threshold for calling it a 'foetus' is usually the beginning of bone calcification and the establishment of a regular heart rhythm at about seven weeks. (Yes, smooth muscle cells are pulsatile right from after they differentiate, but at the early stages of embryogenesis they're poorly synchronized).
Here I thought that my HOA board was buying malware. (Some HOA's see fining homeowners as an important revenue sources.)
... or can I still have my Bayesian classifier do its job? And how do they propose to enforce that? Clockwork Orange-style strapping me to a chair and propping my eyelids open?
In other words, Targeted Victory is most likely one of, if not the most, responsible companiesWow, lifted out of context, that sounds like the exact opposite of your intended message. Targeted Victory is surely an irresponsible company!
You do not have freedom of speech in my parlor. And your freedom of speech is not infringed by my freedom not to listen.
The old-school publishers would like nothing better than to have the power of imprimatur.
Art critics use 'primitive' with a secondary meaning of 'primary; cut from whole cloth', as in the works of Rousseau and Gauguin. It connotes a return to a utopian world thought to have existed before wicked men sullied it. The notion that those of us who are on the spectrum inhabit such an Eden, or at least have visions of it, is perhaps demeaning, but I think it's at worst a poor choice of phrase; 'solipsistic' rather than 'autistic' would be nearer the mark. The great art that came from Primitivism nevertheless does not arise from any sort of naive vision of the world. Rather than coming out of ignorance of the neoclassical traditions, it's mounted in conscious rebellion against it. The original poster is therefore right that "innocent creator" is a preposterous concept. Even the scribblings of a two-year-old are at least in part reactions to the art that surrounds the child.
It's falling with style! But see also RFC 1925 section 3, or the porcine aviation files.
This is going to be a slam dunk lawsuit.Slam dunk for qualified immunity. I'm sure there hasn't been a case before where exactly six deputies stopped a bus carrying female college students for driving in the wrong lane on a Wednesday in Liberty County and searched their luggage, so how were the cops to know that was against the law?
Yeah, it just doesn't make sense that they didn't have anything sitting in the evidence locker that they could "find" in the luggage.
| The shading is based on how complete the states’ maps of the broadband provision within them was. Right. And when the states' maps are based on the data that the carriers give them, they're no better than the Federal ones, they just summarize the same lies.
The spammer won't read the backscatter. Don't inflict it on everyone else.
"banned for being a toxic bullying and possibly criminal asshole, not because of their political beliefs" There's a difference? I thought that toxic and possibly criminal arseholishness, while not being confined to a single political party, was a key plank of one of our party's platforms.
I was mostly commenting on the quality of the data, which are still based on the lies the carriers tell.
I see that New York scores high, but... they tried to revoke Charter Spectrum's license a few years ago (basically for bald-faced lying to the Public Service Commission). They eventually reached a settlement because it was clear Charter wasn't going to budge, and New York would hurt its economy worse if Charter simply cut off all the customers and left the state with the network in disarray. The settlement was large in absolute terms, but a pittance compared with the amounts by which customers and the state were defrauded. Charter is still in the state, and is still lying to the regulators. In the meantime, workers for Charter, who have been on strike for four years, are working on building community broadband in NY City. Where I live (suburb of Albany), my choices are Charter and Verizon. Verizon no longer has a working copper pair to my house. I kissed them good-bye after they told me that I'd have to pay thousands of dollars to get DSL service repaired (or even get my POTS line working again). Charter is operating over an aging cable plant, has frequent outages and weak-signal problems. And this isn't out in the boonies - this is in an affluent suburban neighbourhood well within commuting range of the state capital. Verizon lies, too - and gets away with it. My house is advertised to have Verizon fiber available. The nearest fiber is actually over at the other end of the township, but as long as even one household in the town has it, they get to tell the regulators that the town is served (and advertise the service to town residents, who actually can't get it). But any real attempt to hold Charter responsible is virtually certain to result in a widespread and long-duration network failure, because Charter has informally indicated that it's willing to pull out of the state entirely without any sort of orderly transition plan. With ISPs having that kind of stranglehold over the state's economy, it's going to be damn near impossible for any politician to buck them. Charter has paid a quarter-billion dollars in fines since 2000. They're just part of the cost of doing business.
... and thought that law enforcement officers were receiving training in how to deploy stalkerware against the citizenry. (And I still am virtually certain that's what's going to come of it.)
In other words, because one appellant didn't argue a particular legal right, a binding precedent appears that prevents any other litigant from asserting that right moving forward? "The cops can take your stuff, because last year Joe Smith forgot to put in a brief a claim that they can't"? Lordy.
You have to remember that the purpose of these searches isn't to find the perpetrator. It's to find someone relatively powerless that they can railroad into pleading guilty.