If I post a link to a website that which at that moment doesn't host "forbidden" content but later does, am I liable for providing access to said "forbidden" content? Logic would dictate that a person can only be held accountable for their own actions, not the actions of another.
Tyson has the artificial chicken market cornered. Seriously, try cooking up one of their birds and see if it actually taste like chicken. They are the reason why brining and marinating has become necessary before you can consume breast meat.
From productivity to timewasters, I'd be bankrupt if I had to pay for all the free software available to me due to it being being part of a Linux distribution. Yes, I know that much of the same software has been ported to proprietary systems such as Microsoft's and Apple's, but with Linux I know that from the ground up I can depend on the software in the base distro being free.
I have to disagree with you. There are many required courses that some subset of the student population just won't get. Take Social Studies, for example, no matter how many different cultures people are taught about they just can't imagine living in a culture that is not their own. At the very least, however, they should have learned that their are others who live lives that are very different than their own.
...that the Emperor could savor the cheese in the afterlife. Chinese philosophy, even today and which makes it so amenable to communism, is to favor central authority over individualism. Whether that philosophy is for the best remains to be seen. Western attempts at the same resulted in concentrating power in inept individuals.
I congratulate Mr. Lessig on his victory. This current trend of copyright possessors to lock up humanity's legacy for decades or more has to be stopped. In essence they are given to legal ability to restrict what a person can hear and see for up to a century or more. That is an awesome power that they don't seem to have the ability to weild wisely.
People expect to have some recordings on a cruise, not in a bar.
Sure, why not? People have an inherit need for privacy. Google doesn't seem to understand that.
Obviously there were other' there who don't buy into her story. How about just not wearing Google glasses in bars? How hard would that be?
Many, if not most, people performing perfectly legal activities in bars don't want to be recorded either. If you walk into a bar with Google Glass just be prepared for the worst. One would hope that everyone would understand the inherint need human's have for privacy, but apparetly Googlephile's don't.
"Except when in a bar" should be amended to much legislation. Bars are places people go to escape civilization, not have it thrust upon them.
Surely someone has written open source equivelents to Snow Leopard's software by now. Even if no one did, there is no logical reason for software to become EOL'd. You either fix problems for the life of the hardware, or you provide the information for your customers to fix those problems themselves. That should be law, btw.
Don't bring recordable media into bars. People go to bars to relax and be themselves, fear of being recorded makes them unable to do just that.
Which puts society on the hook for their room and board when they get put in jail, numnuts! Understand and fix the root of the problem, which might be human being's natural tendency to avoid pain and other stressors such as hunger and poverty.
...as little as possible. What's up with this obsession to play with every second of every day anyway?