The real complaint isn't that it can only be loaned out to one person at a time. Nor is it about DRM to prevent copying. It's the fact that they charge far more per ebook and then only let that book exist for two years. Ebooks should cost less than physical books as there are no printing, warehousing or shipping costs.

With proper DRM controls they are not easily copied so the copies the libraries buy (which should cost less than physical copies of paperback books let alone less than hardbound books) should be lendable one at a time. But should last until they are deleted or sold by the libraries. The lower, more realistic costs would allow the libraries to buy more copy licenses of a high demand ebook to allow more frequent lending and replace books that users fail to return. Or the lent books could be coded to expire at the end of the check-out period returning the license to the library to re-lend.

Greedy publishers are not allowing this. But that's not surprising since most of them want nearly as much for an ebook as for a hardbound copy of a book. Baen has long flaunted this and found greater profits in their ebook sales than the other publishers. Their books are DRM free, cost less (though still too much in my opinion) and with many of their more popular series when you buy a hardbound copy of a new book you get the entire prior series to date included. They also have a nice selection of books by their various authors available for free, and found years ago that letting readers sample the first book or three of a series results in increased sales as it hooks the readers and they buy the rest of the series.

The publishing industry with the exception of Baen has mishandled ebooks for over two decades.

Actually a comparison of voter values and opinions found just the opposite. While the GOP has moved to the right some. The Democratic party has moved substantially further to the left. Leaving a broader gap for the moderate centrists to fill but the Left is clearly further to the left than the Right is to the right.

Not in the states that mattered. Popular vote isn't relevant. She didn't campaign for the Electoral college, ignoring reliably blue Wisconsin all together to focus on NY and CA. So she rolled in the votes in CA and NY and reliably blue Wisconsin and several other fly-over states went red.

She was unpopular in the heartland among the Union workers of the Rustbelt that should have guaranteed her an easy win. And this crop of candidates isn't doing much more for that group.

That diversion of funds is limited and was authorized by congress. They still have final say on the budget.

He didn't ignore anything, he followed a specific legal authorization that Congress has passed that allows the President to divert funds from non-critical or wartime military construction budget allocations to address a declared National Emergency. He followed the law as passed by congress. The diversion of funds is legal and the route taken was created by congress years ago. He didn't set a precedence that can be abused.

It requires a National Emergency to be declared. Which congress can revoke at any time with a 2/3 majority vote in both houses.

The President can then only divert money Congress has allocated for military construction. He can only divert funds from non-warzone or non-critical construction projects. He can't divert funds from or to anything else. This power to divert funds is very specific and very limited.

You should be able to just steal the car.

No, that material has been deemed illegal and YouTube would be correct in reporting it and the uploader to the authorities, and taking it down. Such material is not protected by the 1st Amendment and can be removed immediately.

It was also a 3 justice panel, the full 9th may decide differently and negate the need for the SCOTUS, but if it goes to the SCOTUS it is likely to be decided for Prager.

But by placing their property on his property without his permission it is in fact entrapment. They may have a court's permission to place it on his vehicle. But he has every right to remove an object that does not belong from his property. Trying to charge him with theft for doing so is entrapment. They didn't have to ask his permission to place it there but he has no obligation to leave it if found.

As opposed to a bunch of $49 Android tablets all sharing the same google doc? No they wasted a ton of money on this by going with Apple. But hey it's the party's money not government dollars so I'm fine with the Dems wasting money they could be spending on campaigns.

Commandeering all needed commercial transport aircraft for rapid deployment of US troops to Europe for WWIII was a key component of the REFORGER (RE-inFORCE GERmany) Exercises and ops plans during the cold war. The focus of the Airforce's fleet of aircraft would be moving equipment and supplies for those troops, the passenger transport would rely on civilian passenger transport aircraft.

So Yes.

As opposed to the official party propaganda machines of CNN, MSNBC, the WAPO and NYT?

Your eyewitness report is still valid and will likely still be called upon in court. Just because the two persons present give stories that don't match what you provided does not mean your testimony isn't still needed and valid. What you though was a mugging was in fact a domestic dispute and the one with the weapon threatened the other into cooperating and giving the investigating officer a cover story to support their innocence.

Just because you were at a remove, if you actually witnessed the activity your testimony can and will most likely be very valid. Now if it's second or third hand hearsay as the Whistleblower's complain supposedly was, you are likely to be called on the stand to explain why you reported what you did when you did not even see or hear the events take place.

The testimony of the "whistleblower" is still very valid.

Bradly manning was not a whistleblower. He and his allies edited a few of the video clips (one in particular) to make it look like he was whistleblowing on a War crime but in fact he was not because it was not a war crime. What he was, was a thief of classified information, and he revealed massive quantities of classified information regardless of the harm and deaths he caused by his release of the intelligence he hoovered off the classified networks.

Snowden was a Whistleblower when he just released the info about the wiretapping and meta-data collection. But like Manning he too couldn't just stop there he had to download gigabytes of classified data, and released it indiscriminately. Exposing several valid, legal and extremely useful intelligence collection activities directed not against US citizens (which is illegal without cause) but rather against foreign powers and individuals as is fully in the scope of the NSA.

Had he stopped at the metadata reveal he would have been able to retain the Whistleblower status. But when he went far beyond that, he lost that status because his whistleblowing was buried under all the other stuff he illegally leaked to the world without any justification of whistleblowing.

As such neither are whistleblowers. Being a whistleblower doesn't protect you from your other crimes.

Why? We already have a strong WPA in place. Only thing is it does not prohibit in any way the identification of the Whistleblower. There is no guarantee of anonymity when you blow the whistle on government wrongdoing. Such violates the right to face your accuser.

What there is, is protection against repercussions. Being fired, being put on indefinite unpaid leave, being reassigned to a lessor or demeaning role, getting a pay or hours cut or any other negative or perceived negative employment action.

We don't need an amendment for this, there is already a good strong law on the books.

The guy allegedly made the report. Thus he IS the accuser. Congress can't be the accuser, they didn't see or hear anything or talk around the water cooler with those who did. They are the prosecution not the accuser. The person who claimed you raped them is your accuser, not the prosecutor.

Further by refusing to acknowledge that Eric is the whistleblower they negate the protections of the act. They refuse to identify him as the whistleblower which in turn allows the Whitehouse staff to terminate or reassign him as he has not been identified as the whistleblower. There is no anonymity clause in the WPA, and for this reason. If you don't identify who it is that needs to be protected you can't claim that they were punished for whistleblowing.

And your unsubstantiated claims of witness intimidation are irrelevant because Eric has not been confirmed as the person who cannot be retaliated against. He's fair game because they won't confirm his identity or allow anyone else to even hint that he might be the witness.