I'm not sure if you're replying to the wrong message or if you've just completely misread what I posted, but I never said people didn't benefit from having an educational system, regardless of whether they have kids. I merely stated that if we're to block kids from public schooling because of the perfectly legal, if likely quite poor parenting choices of their parents, those kids should have the opportunity to be educated just as any other child. And if the goal is to separate the unvaccinated-by-parental-choice kids from the rest, then it makes perfect sense to ensure that tax monies continue to fund their education for exactly the same reasoning you've suggested.

However, if the intent is merely to punish the children of anti-vaccination parents, then by all means let's kick them out of school and ensure their parents have as limited abilities to educate their children as possible so we can perpetuate cycles of ignorance and poverty.

No, but they could sue them collectively under a joint and several liability argument, saying "we were damaged by $X... feel free to figure out which of you pays which percentage of that amongst yourselves," based on a theory that by linking to each other in the articles, they were acting in concert. That wouldn't require proving which individual new source is responsible for which damage.

I think it was one of the Gawker media sites that posted a full (and amusingly terrible) powerpoint presentation from the leaked stuff, full of marketing and distribution plans.

Unfortunately, parent is incorrect regarding the SCOTUS case law. Not the AC's fault, though - Eugene Volokh's quoted in the article and makes the same mistake. The case law refers specifically to publishing (actually re-playing) an illegally intercepted phone conversation on a matter of great public interest (specifically public teachers union negotiations with the school board). It explicitly says that its holding doesn't apply to trade secrets, private matters, or gossip... and what's the issue here? Trade secrets, private matters, and gossip.

Boies may be a douchebag, but he's a douchebag who actively practices law and apparently reads the cases in full, unlike the good Professor Volokh, who has never actually practiced.

Regardless, those documents will be floating around torrent sites, even if they do nothing. The horse has left the barn.

But this isn't about trying to actually keep the information under wraps - this is about trying to get some financial recompense. Like, someone let the horse out, and your neighbor suddenly has a sale on fresh horse meat... You're not getting your horse back, but maybe you should get a portion of their unlawfully gained profits.

In particular, the material includes both material under copyright, as well as trade secrets. Copyright law doesn't include a safe harbor for "but I'm a newspaper" or a generic "first amendment!" defense - while papers could publish short excerpts of the leaked info under fair use (17 USC 107), for news or commentary purposes, they could not, say, publish the entire script to the new Bond movie, relying on a defense of "well, we didn't steal it, and the first amendment says we can publish anything we want because we're the media."

Going further, many states' trade secret laws actually include explicit provisions about publishing trade secrets that were obtained unlawfully, even if you weren't the person who originally stole them. And while terrible law professor Eugene Volokh thinks that the Bartnicki case has a first amendment exemption, he's clearly never actually read it - SCOTUS specifically said that it doesn't apply to trade secrets, but for matters of public interest. Now, that may apply to things like Sony's CEO's salary, but it likely doesn't apply to things like advertising campaign plans or product release strategies.

So, if the media publishes the unlawfully obtained trade secrets or publishes the material under copyright in a way that exceeds the bounds of fair use, then they may be financially liable for Sony's damages. That doesn't put the horse back in the barn, since it's gone, man, but it does at least help pay for the new horse (and maybe a better lock).

Christianity started out violent but eventually mellowed out for the most part. Islam is just several ticks behind the times.

Depends on where you live.

Depends on where you live.

Just post them all on "Hot or not"

I don't think a parent wants The Internet rating their 11-year-old daughter's anterior end (especially if the score is extremely high or low.)

Scotty: "Files? How quaint".

Most software developers will take one look at the excessive parentheses required for Kawa and Scheme and say "nuke it from orbit". Even Lisp advocates like Paul Graham admits that syntax like "(* (+ 1 2) (- 5 4))" is painful to deal with.

Thankfully, there *are* solutions for Scheme: SRFI-105 and SRFI-110 (which I co-authored). These are extensions to Scheme that let you keep meta programming (and syntax tree editing in an editor) with readable syntax. To my knowledge Kawa doesn't implement them, but they could be added.

Stopping to make the original drug should cause immediate expiration of its patent. A patent is a government-created monopoly to encourage people to make the stuff. Clearly, if the company won't make it, there's no need for the patent. Requiring a company to make something they don't want to make is absurd; instead, just let others make it. And if they raise the prices substantially, perhaps require patent licensing in those cases (just as we did for music).

Your search - Google "7200.11" & "firmware update" & "didn't work for me" & "my driver serial ... - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

        Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
        Try different keywords.
        Try more general keywords.
        Try fewer keywords.

To be fair, a great many of that 42% have little opportunity to save based on the value of the work they're doing. When you're making $18k a year, even if you have no kids, it's nearly impossible to save anything. Now I know what you're going to say - get a better job - but ultimately, someone has to clean the toilets at your office building and that someone isn't going to make more than $18k because that work just isn't that valuable. Increasing everyone's pay is also not a solution as that merely increases prices to compensate and brings down middle class workers.

Of course, there's an argument to be made that such people should give up something they really like - TV, cell phone, something - to invest in a 401k. Putting aside $50/month in something like a 401k or IRA with no employer match turns into about $220,000 over 40 years ($335k over 45). However, that $50/month can be a huge amount to someone at that end of the scale and it'll be the first thing to go when they have a medical issue and need to pay the doctor to get better. Worse, these people often have one or more kids (and I don't know how they make that all work), which proves an even greater drain on what tiny resources they have.

Perhaps part of every welfare program should include some money and financial management counseling.