An 'emergency order' will extend the rule until Congress comes back from a very well deserved vacation

Not likely. The executive does not have the authority to extend a law that congress decided to let lapse.

If congress does not take action to re-authorize, then the authorization is gone effective immediately at the date of expiration; not at the date it is most convenient for the NSA or others.

So, you want a dumb phone, but you want it to have smart phone features

I want something as close to a smart phone as possible that The phone company will not force me to get a data plan for

ATT, Verizon, and others have a policy that you cannot use certain phones on their network without a data plan. They will automatically upgrade you to a data plan, even if you would rather use your phone with WiFi.

I want the phone with the most features as possible that you can use without a data plan.

Frankly, I would like an Android device with no non-Wifi data functionality, that the phone companies would classify as a dumb phone.

My prediction would be the debates over whether human-caused climate change exists and is important or impactful w/acceptance of a need to change will still be ongoing for 15 years at least, with no major predictions accepted as valid or invalid by the opposing parties, because there are very strong economic, political, and commercial/personal brand interests by many people, and especially powerful people with deep pockets in the outcome of this debate on both sides, And politics tends to always trump science, logic, and rational action, at least for the short term.

See James Hansen's paper on Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric CO2: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

no contract can trump the fact that things and people that are visible from public property have no expectation of privacy.

Correct. Also, no contract not agreed to by the party in question can surrender any of their rights.

For example: your next door neighbor whose backyard is visible from your property or the public street cannot sign a contract with a photographer for exclusive landscaping rights and then take away your right to photograph the portion of their property that is visible from the street or visible from your property.

They can sign an "exclusive" agreement, but it's not worth the paper it's printed on, unless they conduct physical actions on their own such as installing high fences to protect the exclusivity.

You retain those rights, and so long as you do not commit a grievous breach of privacy: such as trespassing onto their property to open a gate or create a hole in a fence or covering, or conduct an intrusion upon seclusion such as photographing your neighbor naked in their backyard behind a high fence, from your ladder (It's not a breach if you use a taller tripod or climb a ladder on your property or public property to get an aerial view of their lawn, not photographing anything offensive or invasive to their person): there is no legal authority against you as a 3rd party to stop or prevent you from photographing just to support their obligations under an exclusivity contract.

Your post in response to a request for pairs of links contained only a single link and was thus automatically rejected. FAIL.

Your request is unreasonable. Just because you would like real-world data to take a certain format: does not mean that you get to choose the format.

It is still sufficient to invalidate the claim that: none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.

when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.

That is complete and utter nonsense, when the subject is modeling the value of a variable over a period of time.

It is implausible that someone randomly predicted all or most every possible set of results. That would only be possible with a simple 'binary' prediction such as "A positive trend", or at least a prediction of a small number of datapoints, or datapoints that can take on a limited number of discrete values.

Models make specific predictions over a period of time, when most of the predictions made by the model are accurate to a reasonable degree (no model is perfect), then the prediction was made and came true, And it cannot be attributed to the claim that "'once a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.'".

They will kick you out if they spot you with a cam

That doesn't necessarily mean they can enforce the terms on the ticket in any way. Once you have the photo, or the footage, you legally own the footage. They cannot, for example: legally prevent you from posting your photo or reselling your footage, they also cannot force you to delete or destroy anything, they cannot take your camera or damage it or operate its controls, or your film or storage media, or hold you or your equipment hostage, etc, etc.

Any of those actions would be illegal, whereas your action of taking a photograph is not a crime.

Yes, the property owner or their legally appointed representative definitely has the option of kicking you out if they spot you holding a camera. They can have their personnel ask you to leave; their personnel have to be prepared to show convincing legal proof that they are an agent of the property owner.

In that case, you still have and own any photos or video you took before being forced to leave, AND you may be due a refund for the ticket, and the venue may be liable for the cost, since your admission has then been dishonored, once they have failed or refused to provide the access paid for.

That would mean the school would have to notify EVERY attendee with a camera that they are not allowed to sell photos due to an exclusivity contract.

Mere notification does not suffice. Each one attending would have to agree to a contract restricting the usage of photos they take as a condition required to enter the property.

If the event is being held on school grounds, which is public property, then the administrators might not have the right to even condition entry to surrendering such publication rights.

I wouldn't be surprised if a local professional photographer was already given an exclusive contract to sell photos.

An agreement with a photographer does not bind third parties. Unless you required third parties entering the property to assent to an explicit agreement not to photograph, or an agreement restricting the usage of photographs taken, then they can use the photos they took and own rights to in any lawful manner once they leave.

I doubt that vendors can just attend an event and sell something like hot dogs for instance without some kind of agreement.

In most places, it is probably not lawful as a business/food vendor to go onto someone else's property without permission and conduct sales on-site; you can lose your license that way, also.

On the other hand, there is no restriction on taking pictures anywhere you are lawfully present. Although, in some municipalities, taking pictures of certain public objects (Such as the Hollywood sign in California) for a commercial purpose requires a permit issued by the local authority, but that is a matter of special local law used to help fund the maintenance of those public works.

The real story is that this guy was selling the photos. And he was using school provided equipment. And he wasn't paying taxes.

Selling the photos online isn't a crime. The conditions he was allowed to use the school equipment under allowed him to retain his copyrights, and he didn't sign an agreement promising not to sell photos for money.

Most likely, no taxes are due; he obviously hasn't been running this for years, probably less than 6 months. In order for taxes to be due and unpaid, he would have to be successful in his sales and profit from them, AND have sufficient profit to require filing a return, AND fail to file the required returns for state and federal.

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.

Wrong. The law does not say that, and the conditions the student was allowed to use the camera under did not include an assignment of copyright ownership.

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble.

Only if you're a player or party to an agreement that prohibits tweeting the score.

They only own copyright to the media they produce.

Unless the mark is "famous". Then a separate cause of action called "trademark dilution" comes into play.

Except the use of a mark to refer to a product for the purpose of criticism which is outside of normal trade falls under fair use and cannot be dilution.

Brilliant! Lets turn the entire country into Camden NJ. Not to beat a great quote to death [...]

Sorry, but you've misused the quote. I support liberty as much as the next guy.

Privacy when you are on the public roads is not liberty.

Your choice whether or not the equipment you paid for sends video to authorities without your permission is liberty, and it's up for you to choose a product that meets your needs or find a way to disable functionality you don't want.

My argument is people of their own free will will be happy to share their video feed with the government, without any encroachment on their liberty. Especially when the number of LEOs on the streets is reduced, AND a special reward is offered for autonomous vehicle owners catching corroborated crimes on video ---- people will be rushing to share their feed with the government, when a reportable/rewardable event occurs, with absolutely no loss of liberty necessary for that to come about.

OK... fair enough then. Don't charge for additional weight on a linear-graduated scale. Instead charge for additional weight on a quadratic scale, where an increase in the weight by a factor of N is an increase in the factor of tax charged by N^4.

This will tend to encourage shipment using multiple lighter vehicles instead of one super-heavy vehicle.

located close enough to a rail line to cost effectively build a spur is negligible.

There is some tax rate at which it would become cost effective to do so.

Granted, they might instead choose to instead spend a smaller amount of money lobbying in advance for a tax break, and politicians would likely be persuaded by their constituents who don't like paying $100 US for a gallon of milk or $150 for a dozen of eggs.