How much did that report cost? I could have given it to them in 2 words, for free:
Q: "Is unconstitutional warrantless spying effective?"
A: "Fuck no."
How much did that report cost? I could have given it to them in 2 words, for free:
Is there any work that is over 50 years old that still brings in big money? The proper solution is to charge an annual fee per work for continued protection of, say $1000/year after 50 years. I'll bet they won't want to pay that.
So what if they're still making money? The idea of copyright term was never to ensure that anybody would profit from them forever. It is to incentivize creators into creating, to help them make some money to making creating worthwhile. Do you think copyright terms extending beyond 50 years would have had any effect on the decisions of people 50 years ago as to whether or not creating something was worth their time? I'm sure Elvis would have thought, "Gee, copyright terms are only 50 years? Never mind, I'm not going to write or perform these songs, sorry guys."
Say hello to my firearms when they come to try and take my children.
How ironic! The law isn't saying that they're going to take away your children if you don't vaccinate, it's saying they can't attend public school. It's the exact same thing as how they don't allow your kid to bring a gun to school, so that other kids aren't forced to be exposed to deadly things. If you want your child to have access to guns while learning, you can still homeschool them. If you want your child to be unvaccinated, you can still homeschool them.
The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools
For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value...
Okay, setting aside that claim...the law isn't actually saying that you have to vaccinate your children (personally I think it should, but it doesn't). It merely says you have to vaccinate your kids in order to allow them to expose other children in public school. If you want to homeschool your children, you don't have to vaccinate. You're kids also aren't allowed to bring a gun to public school, but if you want your kids to have access to a gun while they are learning, then again, you can homeschool them. Same fucking thing.
Even in the Americas, we tend not to talk overly much of what the Europeans did to the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere.
I would disagree, in a sense. In the US people who are informed are happy to talk about it. The problem is that we're not taught it in high school history class. And most history teachers tend to punish students for contradicting the textbook - which happened to me in American History where she would give me C's (she tried giving me F's but I complained to the principal, so she couldn't actually fail me, apparently I was a defiant brat which of course only made that bitch hate me more) for well researched papers that contradicted the textbook on topics much less important than the genocide of the the Native Americans. If I knew then what I know now, I could have had so much fun messing with with that bitch. Okay, I digress...point being it's not taught in school and in most schools students are prevented from contradicting the textbooks' propaganda.
First of all, genocide had a well accepted meaning before a bunch of self-appointed lexicographers in the UN or whatever got in a room to come up with their own definition.
If you're going to argue based on the etymology of a word, maybe you should look up the etymology of the word before making crap up. The term "genocide" was coined based on the killing of Armenians by the Ottoman government. Therefore this is not only an example of genocide, it is the example of genocide.
The question is, will these drones be watching you for the police, NSA, and other illegal unconstitutional uses - or will they be watching you and selling your metadata to the police, NSA, etc for private corporations.
The report, which took one full year into account, found that complaints against police have fallen 40.5 percent and use of “personal body” force by officers has been reduced by 46.5 percent. Use of pepper spray has decreased by 30.5 percent.
Two benefits can be seen immediately. First, the police are being harassed less from false complaints. Second, and more important, the police are finding ways to settle most disputes without the use of force, which means they are abusing their authority less.
These statistics do confirm what many on both the right and the left have begun to believe in recent years, that the police have been almost certainly using force against citizens inappropriately too often. In San Diego at least the cameras are serving to stem this misuse of authority.
can you write into the house buying contract, the requirement for inet connectivity?
Yes, you can. But what happens if you've done your due diligence (and maybe even the seller has too) and you don't know until after closing? I suppose you could write in that broadband be installed before closing to prove it, but if they have multiple offers then having an extra clause like that could be viewed as an extra pain in the ass (and an indication that there's higher chance that you'll back out for some other nonsense reason even if they do install it) so you're less likely to get your offer accepted.
All these people blaming the homeowner have probably never bought a house before, or at least if they did, they didn't pay enough attention to know what was really going on (which is what the realtor's job, so that doesn't mean they're stupid) and they didn't encounter anything unexpected.
The Common Law is so 'Caveat Emptor' it isn't funny.
I would say it's more like qui habet pecuniam pro advocatorum
Maybe he shoulda talked to the people he bought the house from instead of level 1 sales drone.
And what if the people living in the house didn't have broadband because they weren't interested in it? There are still plenty of people, although a small percentage, who don't have a computer at home, especially older people. On a previous rental I had, I asked the owner if it had broadband available and he didn't know because the previous tenant (who had been there a long time) didn't have it. On my house that I bought 2 years ago, I called both the phone and cable companies (only 2 options in my area) and both said I could get service. If they later told me I couldn't, what would I do? The seller listed that it had DSL available on the seller's disclosure, but they also listed that it was on sewer (there is no sewer in the area, which I already knew) so clearly that wasn't reliable. Sure, it could be used as a reason to back out of the sales contract before closing, but once it's closed, what are you gonna do? Sue the seller for being wrong in the disclosure? Good luck with that. Sue the cable and phone companies for being wrong? Good luck with that too.
Hell, even looking at the house he should have seen if there was coax in place or not.
And if it had analog cable but no digital or broadband available, that would be pretty meaningless, right? Or, if it wasn't wired for cable just because the previous owners didn't care about it doesn't mean it's not available.
If you're baking cakes out the back door of your house and selling them on Etsy (never mind how that works), fine, the government probably didn't support you, and you didn't promise them you'd participate in the economy they set up.
How do you bake cakes without the help of the government? Ingredients were produced with the help of government farming subsidies. Those ingredients were delivered to your wholesaler on roads built by the government. Water and power are delivered to your kitchen using government built and/or subsidized infrastructure. The stuff contained in your bakery is protected from thieves by laws created by the government and enforced by police provided by the government. If your neighbor's place catches fire, it's prevented from spreading to your bakery by the government funded fire department. The list goes on and on...you get the idea.
People shouldn't have to be convinced that chemicals in their living space and food chain are a bad idea.
Do you know what a chemical is. Without chemicals you'd be dead. Your misuse of the word is blaring example that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Thus, at the very least the WHO needs to explain the stats rather than just the raw "probably causes cancer."
The problem is that people don't understand what that term means. It sounds like it means it probably gives people cancer. What it does not mean it that it causes cancer in normal use. For example, nitrates are on that same list. This includes sodium nitrate, which is in all cured meats (bacon, ham, lunchmeat, sausage) - even Organic & natural ones (check ingredients for "celery powder" or "beet powder"). So, under normal rates of consumption, a human isn't going to get nearly enough to be carcinogenic. But if you give massive quantities to rats, it is.
So with glyphosate, what is it? Is it just carcinogenic if you give massive amounts to rats? Is it carcinogenic if you inhale it but not consume it? Is it only carcinogenic in liquid form but not after it dries? Do people get enough of it in their diet to be carcinogenic? How 'bout if you live next to a farm that uses it? What about farm workers? The classification of "probably carcinogenic" is essentially meaningless without proper context.
A lot of people *CHOOSE*
Canadians get to choose? Here is Soviet USA, ISPs choose YOU!