As others have said, that's incorrect except in the case of trying to use it for a business purpose such as marketing where they are trying to use the individual (or other trademark) to promote their brand. There is no real exception for news media as news media are not suppose to be promoting a brand with the photos - just reporting what is happening, which any individual can do as well.

If a celeb just happens to be in the background, completely unrelated to the point of the picture, then they probably do not. But, as always, consult a lawyer first.

That doesn't apply in this case, and what you're thinking of is not in relation to this, but in relation to slander.

Does he? Who's equipment did he use? His own? the schools?

If he used his own, then yes I'd agree he fully owns everything, even if he was using his equipment on behalf of the school newspaper/etc.

But if he used the school's (except by permission for his own personal use, etc), then there's a case that could be made that the school owns the work. It's harder since he likely wasn't PAID for it (which is typically required) but the case could be made.

There is nothing legally preventing you from tweeting the score, and they can't prevent you from recording or photographing anything (legally) unless you otherwise agree - usually as part of buying a ticket, the ticket being the contract; however, it could be argued that the contract is too one-sided so it non-enforceable.

They can control what is broadcast via the networks to the degree that is it not over the public airwaves, which per FCC are public and anyone can record.

Doesn't need one at a PUBLIC event. He only needs it if doing photos in private, restricted areas - e.g the locker room.

Need to know? None. All critical skills remain the same - communication, writing, math.

Should know? Basic familiarity, tools, and typing so that they can use the tools available via technology when its appropriate to use, and the knowing when to and when not to use it.

Technology does not magically solve problems. If you don't know how to write, using Word or OO/LO Writer isn't going to help you and it won't necessarily make you a better writer either. It's not different than a calculator making you a better mathematician versus just helping you along - you have to know how to do the math either way and when to use which formula, something a calculator can't teach you. All these things are beyond the purview and ability of technology.

So honestly, you could remove computers, the Internet, etc from the classroom and probably be more effective in teaching the requisite skills to move through life. What technology will be used in life will change over time and teaching it in the classroom won't change that or better prepare students for what technology they will actually use in the work force and life - exception being the specific vocational training for vary specific vocations and the requisite technology associated therein, even then an automotive mechanic should be able to diagnose a vehicle without a computer, etc.

The complaints: It's too hard to get 66% of Congress and 75% of the States to agree to change it, so politically it's just easier to get SCOTUS to allow the Federal government to do what is desired by "reinterpreting" the meaning you want into what was already written.

It's primarily a complaint by those in favor of Big Government; though many in favor of Small Government have turned to it as well in order to try to roll back the Progressive movements of the last 100 years. So both sides are now guilty of it.

There's a balance to be struck between the two positions; though I do favor the Originalism position more and give more weight to it. There's a lot to be learned from history and Originalism forces you to look back at history, learn from it, and apply it to today. The "Living Document" position does not, and sets up the repetition of history as a result since they ignore history, ignore lessons learned from history, and just try to do their own thing.

So the stories spill from one sprint to another. There's nothing wrong with that. That's part of the methodology of Agile, and also points that the project manager is not properly managing the project - whether not having enough people on the project to handle the work required for the sprint durations, or overloading the sprints in hopes of getting work done faster than they should, or the people involved in the project are not accurately breaking down stories into suitable chunks.

Having participated in both; I can see benefits either way. However, allowing the developers to do what you've said is a fault in the management of the project. QA/QC/QE is part of Agile. If need be, you just add tasks (stories) in Agile to do it and make sure they get done - if not, you're not managing the project correctly.

Agile itself is about being responsive to the needs of the project, and that includes all the QA/QC/QE stuff, as well as Security, Bugs, Changing Requirements, etc.

Now, if you're working in an organization that will enforce that the requirements will not change (do any such organizations exist?!!) then Waterfall is probably better than Agile.

Yes, it gives me a point on which to teach them about responsible use of finances and how they can't have everything in life.

Mod parent up!

NetFlix and Hulu would be Information Services, aka Content Provider.

Generic ISPs are not Information Services, but Communications Services. They content of the communications just happens to be data instead of voice.

The problem is that the ISPs also have a Content-Provider side of the business - e.g. uVerse TV, Xfinity, Cable TV Services, Disney (since it's owned by one of the cable companies), and more. So there is an inherent conflict of interest.

HOAs are not voluntary in most cases. In some states there is no requirement to disclose the HOA prior to closing either.

Yes, an HOA can be setup as voluntary; but most are not and are part of the Land Deed that goes with the property in a clause that cannot be removed from the Deed. Fees and Fines can be placed as liens against the property (usually granted to the HOA in the Deed).

My parent's, for instance, bought a house in OH. They didn't know there was an HOA at all until months later when someone from the HOA tried to collect dues. The majority of the people in the development did not want the HOA. They couldn't absolve it unless they got the local township to annex them; and the township didn't want to annex them.

When my wife & I bought our first home in SC, they was a voluntary HOA. We never joined since the rules of the HOA only applied if you were in the HOA; and there wasn't really any benefit to being part of it. It has since dissolved because of not enough members, meetings, etc.

When we were looking for a home in GA we came across a number of HOAs, including one that was "voluntary" - voluntary until an owner joined it, then it was no longer voluntary for them or any subsequent owners. They were actively trying to get all the homes to be no longer voluntary.

When we bought our second home in GA, there was no real HOA. There is an "HOA" but it's only got charge of the maintenance for the entrance; no rules, no attachment to the deed, etc.

Both in SC and in GA we had to look long and hard to find an HOA that was not restrictive. Most had dumb rules like "you cannot work on a car in your driveway except in emergency". The worst was one in SC that had a rule that anyone under 18 found on common property after 10 PM would be arrested for trespassing - they made the rule in response to a couple of minors and an adult vandalizing the pool house.

Ultimately, HOAs do not "increase or maintain value" for a home. They decrease it because of the rules and how hard it is to change them.

My Gateway 2000 P-75 (Pentium 75 MHz) had a "Turbo" button (http://www.vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=433)

Yes:

Boeing vs Airbus

US (individual) vs Europe (collective)