Sorry, this one is a self-inflicted wound. It's not just that they're popular now, and not just that they've apparently been buying up nearly all the advertising around sports. It's mostly because of the big insider trading scandal. It seems employees of one company would use the info they got to play the other company's games to win huge money. And it was both companies doing it to each other. See here.
So no sympathy for these guys, they brought this one on themselves.
No, we don't have to define the legal line as a specific age. Doing so has all kinds of problems, beyond situations like this one. The better way would be to simply require that the law determine (using psychologists/etc.) whether the potential victim was capable of consenting, regardless of age. This would be harder, but would nicely handle situations like developmentally disabled adults who are not capable of giving consent, yet with existing laws are assumed to be able to. (It would also handle situations where someone is mentally mature, but young.)
But like I said, this is harder, so it'll never happen. The "justice" system just wants quick and easy prosecutions, not actual justice.
The medicine cost only $1 a pill several years ago (article isn't clear on how long ago that was), so it's pretty obvious the cost to manufacture here isn't very high. Certainly nowhere near $13 a pill, and not even in the same ballpark as $750 a pill. I won't claim every generic should cost pennies per pill, but this generic shouldn't be more than $1-$2 a pill.
This company also has zero development costs to recoup, the medicine has been around since 1953. The guy says he's doing this to fund R&D into a new drug for the disease, but there's actually no demand or need for one. So that's probably a lie to try to justify the insane price gouging.
The thing that really gets me about this one is that it doesn't sound like it was the parents' fault at all that he overdosed. They had gone above and beyond what would be expected of any parent, spending huge sums of money trying to help him deal with his drug problem.
So ultimately the only cause here is: their son. No one else is to blame, it all falls on him.
I do feel sorry for them losing their child, but their lawsuits are making me lose that sympathy fast. At this point it does look like nothing but trying to cash in on their son's death, which is disgusting.
Ahmed's clock wasn't "knowingly manufactured with the intent of being a hoax bomb" and yet he was arrested under this statute. So either the police arrested him illegally, or they're legally interpreting the statute in such a way that would allow a dildo or a Taco Bell to also be included.
So you have either: 1. The police acted illegally the entire time. 2. The law allows almost anything to be considered a hoax bomb by authorities.
You're not the only one. I started out hopeful, and liked what I saw in the technical preview. The new start menu was well done, and the live tiles could be completely removed. I was a bit concerned about the update policy, but figured it was because it was beta software and Microsoft wanted the beta testers current.
And... it's been downhill ever since. To be able to schedule when my updates happen, I'd have to upgrade to professional, making Win10 a non-free upgrade. Then all this crap with privacy, or lack thereof.
I have had problems and disliked some previous Windows OS versions (notably ME and Vista), but I never seriously considered switching to Linux before. Now, I am. If Windows 10 is still looking awful in a year's time, I'm just going to plan to switch over to Linux by Windows 7's end-of-life. I may seriously do it anyway, because I no longer trust Microsoft at all.
Sealing is entirely different, that's when it's a secret decision and closed to anyone beyond the participants knowing about it. Unpublished decisions are simply decisions unavailable for citation in other cases, as the court deems them to have insufficient precedential value.
Basically all it means is "hey, this isn't worth citing, so don't do so".
Now there is some controversy about unpublished decisions, but it's not meant to be secret in the same way that sealing a decision is. And this particular one would be uncontroversial, since it's just a simple and short upholding of the prior decision (which can be cited).
This seems like a totally bogus decision. Even if he IS an employee, those actions would have gotten him fired. (For good reason too.) And you don't get unemployment if you're terminated for cause. So I just don't see how he qualifies for unemployment either way.
This is insanely stupid and short-sighted. I recently was hunting for an old album and found it on Spotify. I was quite happy to listen to it for free and legally. But now that this is happening I'll be looking to stream rip it. That way I'll still be able to listen to it if Spotify has to kill the free tier.
This helped piracy how exactly? Now they're going from some money via my legal streaming to zero money with my stream ripping. Brilliant move guys!
Asking for an ID won't save you either. I remember a case, I believe it was in England, where a girl under legal age had lied to a guy and showed him a fake ID to prove she was the age she claimed. He still ended up charged and convicted over it.
And yes, some preteens/teens who mature early do look like adults. Some look like a cross between a child and an adult (usually the face looks more childish, but body is mature). Sometimes you really can't tell by looking at them.
I looked at the article to see if it mentions that, and it had this:
It would take a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to override Mead's veto. The bill cleared both houses by margins far above that level in this legislative session. The bill had been sponsored by the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee, which held hearings on it last year.
So the odds are good it will get passed over his veto.
I really don't get why police/prosecutors haven't jumped at the chance to press criminal child porn charges against the various revenge porn sites. They're happy to press said charges against teens who took nude photos of themselves, but here we have a pretty clear example of actual child porn distribution and not a peep.
It wouldn't even be a problematic charge. If you aren't verifying ages and refuse to take pictures down, you damn well deserve to be charged with distribution of child pornography!
That's just insane, I can't see anything remotely similar. Old Ox uses blue, yes, but it's nowhere near Red Bull's blue. Maybe Red Bull thinks the X mimics their diagonal on the can, but... the angle's not even close to the same. (Also, it's a fucking letter X.)
I guess Red Bull's just full of bullshit and needs to let it out.