We cannot accept that rivers in India show higher concentrations of active antibiotic than the blood of someone undergoing treatment.
I'd have to see a source before I'd credit that as true, but damn, it's a frightening concept.
If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country.
IANAL but that would seem to be a different situation: If the court requests a document you have and then you mail it to your overseas confederate, then I think you'll be on the hook for something like obstruction of justice.
But if you mail your confederate a document, then later the court requests you to produce it, you can tell them "That's the property of Confederate, who are a different entity. You'll need to request it from them."
If we want to address this issue, we need a complete overhaul of our IP laws.
Yeah, but nobody talking about net neutrality wants all packets to be equal. They want all destinations to be equal.
If travelling to one destination does not count against your data cap, then that destination is not on equal footing.
Subsidizing traffic doesn't violate net neutrality, because it doesn't affect the delivery of data, only the cost to the end user.
It does violate net neutrality, because it affects the cost of delivery of data to and from the end user.
What Wikipedia is doing here is a good thing by itself, but if the practice were to become commonplace, it's something that would be very bad.
1. It allows ISPs to use a pricing model that takes advantage of market segmentation
2. It provides ISPs with leverage they can apply to other market entities to gain benefits, such as cash or quid pro quo (preferential treatment).
And when that fishing line eventually wears out and snaps, what happens to whatever axis that fishing line was supporting? It comes crashing down.
Why wouldn't you replace it before that happens?
What are the possible choices for farmers?
You forgot 3. grow good crops with free seeds.
So, what exactly is the issue?
Repressive Intellectual Property laws are prolonging global poverty and hunger by restricting access to technologies that could realistically be provided freely or at cost.
If yes, then the problem has nothing to do with body cams specifically.
If no, then why are these recording being treated so differently?