Settling space doesn't imply abandoning Earth. It just increases the chance that at least some humans will survive in case something takes out Earth.
1) My guess is that declaring the woman partially nude in that case would cause her a lot of problems with other laws. Would it even be legal for her to be partially nude in public?
2) Her privacy and dignity are not important in this case unless there are laws that protect them. And there don't seem to be any in this case.
3) The police don't have the best record of knowing what the law is. Most cops are not lawyers and even those that are don't have the right to decide what the laws mean.
Why blame the court and not those that wrote ambiguous laws? Would you like it if the court decided that yes, she was partial nude so the photographer was sent to jail, if they at the same time convicted her for indecent exposure?
The laws governing secret photographing. The court found that they do not forbid upskirt photos. And the blame for that should fall on whoever wrote the laws and any latter politicians in power that did not change them to include upskirt photos.
This is the opposite situation. You're asking people to punish someone for something that is not (yet) illegal. The person that should be punished is the politicians for writing bad laws.
This situation is more similar to you living in a house that is 50% open to the public. You then forget to lock the dividing door and are shocked when people wonder into the part where they are not supposed to be - even when it is not marked that THIS part of the house is not meant for the public.
Yeah, sorry about that.
From what I've read, the judge basically ruled that the jury couldn't say that EA made a derivative work, without the jury seeing the two games running side by side. So he didn't care about the source code, just the look of the games and ruled that the look was more important than anything else (such as the expert testimony).
But wasn't the ruling exactly the opposite of what you said? The judge said that because the jurors didn't see the appearance of the two games side by side they couldn't rule that EA reusing code. From what I've read there was nothing about source code in the ruling.
Does the expert opinion not count as evidence? If you had a vet testify that yes, CmdrTaco is a horse that likes to walk across keyboards, and the other side did nothing to refute that, why shouldn't the jury rule that CmdrTaco is a horse? Especially since the defense refused to present him to the jury to show that he is a human.
But if defense doesn't present any evidence, doesn't that make it an automatic win for the plaintiff under preponderance of evidence? After all, even someone just saying that he believes that they stole something from him is more then silence.
Wouldn't increasing pay also increase the number of things that the workers buy, increasing the profits of the companies? You know, trickle around economics instead of just trickle down.
But that could make the train derail and kill all 6.
And isn't that how it works now?
Don't you have to transfer your coins to coinbase first? So that transaction prevents you from paying them to anyone else.
Another good thing would be if the SEC actually punished the guys who break the rules, instead of mostly just making them give back some of the money they made.
The manager would still be making way more then everyone else. And if he was working more hours, he'd be making even more - the pay is per hour.