Comment posting to remove accidential mod (Score 1) 163
made the wrong mod, posting to remove it
made the wrong mod, posting to remove it
The only thing we know is that they've been caught before they were in the wild.
Except they've been out there for at least a year, probably more.
These things can be (and are) removed from the cars and moved into new ones. It's not a permanent installation.
You can just turn them off. Button's on the side or top. Takes two seconds, although you do have to do it every time you start the car, which is kind of annoying.
Pretty damn funny comment, since the reason I don't have any mod points is that I had just used them up. Karma's excellent, thanks.
You sound like you're very familiar with Swedish law - wish I had some mod points to give you.
Question for you: under US law, the statute of limitations doesn't run if you stay out of the jurisdiction for the clear purpose of running out the clock. Same for the right to a speedy trial if you're already indicted. So, you can't just hide to run out the clock. It sounds like Swedish law is different...
The price point is already great, when you consider the operating cost.
Because viewing that content is illegal where you're located.
2) No Throttling - An ISP can't say "you have broadband Internet" and then tell you "you've used too much so now you're stuck at dial-up speeds." If they want to have caps - e.g. only 500GB of data per month - they need to clearly specify this limitation. ("the Order builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose
promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances")
Actually, an ISP _can_ offer a "500GB, but then we slow you down to 65kbps package." The no throttling provision is designed to deal with something different. Provision 1 says no blocking (i.e. Comcast can't block access to Netflix). Provision 2 says no throttling, to keep the ISP from saying "we're not blocking access to Netflix, it's right there - at no more than 20kbps." You can do network management/prioritization (i.e. if there's congestion, prioritize Facetime chats over backups, for example), but you have to be evenhanded about it - can't throttle Netflix, but not Hulu, for example.
Company's name is Deutsche Telekom.
Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. So, what's obscene? As Justice Stewart said, "I know it when I see it." Most current Supreme Court caselaw is Miller v. California, which has a three-prong test for ruling something obscene:
1. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law,
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[4]
A prosecutor has to check all three boxes to win an obscenity case. They're very tough to win, and very rarely filed. It's an open question as to how Internet content should be handled (Third Circuit disagrees with Ninth Circuit).
She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago.
The first part of that sentence is true and tells you how far left the Democratic Party has moved. The second part is nonsense. A generation ago, Hillary was on the left fringe of the Democratic Party. She has not moved right, the Party has moved left.
Are you seriously arguing that the political center hasn't moved right over the past 20 years? Seriously?
In 1989, the Heritage Foundation, which pretty much represents (then and now) mainstream Republican thought, proposed a plan for health care reform that included a mandatory coverage and gov't subsidies for those unable to afford coverage. Those two principles, now embedded in Obamacare, have both been the focus of lawsuits (supported by the Republican mainstream) against Obamacare (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Burwell v. King).
Richard Nixon proposed and drove the creation of the EPA.
He expanded Medicare coverage to include long-term disabled under 65.
He created the Federal disability insurance (SSDI).
He proposed a national health care plan, with federal subsidies (something more "socialized" than Obamacare).
Advocating any of these things today would make it impossible for any Republican to get the Presidential nomination.
Not very well I must admit. But it only fair to point out that the Supreme Court Justices who voted to grant citizenship rights to corporations (whose interest are, more often than not, quite apart from those of real citizens) were appointed by Republican presidents.
True, if you're including Grant, Hayes, Arthur, etc. as Republicans (which they were, although the Republican party of the 1880s is a bit different than that of today). Also, you'd need to include Democratic-Republican Presidents like Madison and Monroe on that list.
Corporate personhood is NOT a new phenomenon - it's been a well-established principle since (for varying purposes) the 1880s or the 1810s.
I think you mean "there should have been, only one."
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
