Banning enforcement of certain aspects of a contract may be useful. But it deprives the parties of the freedom to meaningfully enter into such contracts
You’re actually making the argument that the state declining to exert power over its citizens is actually a loss of freedom? That’s moronic.
Light behaves as both a particle and a wave—at the same time. Einstein taught us that, so we're all generally on board, but to actually understand what it means would require several Ph.D.s and a thorough understanding of quantum physics
Stop pretending physics is spooooky. It's not that difficult to understand, at least at a superficial level. And I don't have a degree, let a lone a Ph.D, but even I can explain it (again, superficially):
Time dilation means that the faster you go, the slower time goes. If you're travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, then the speed at which you're travelling through time is slowed infinitely. This means a photon experiences no passing of time between the moment it is created, and the moment it collides with something.
But the speed of light is finite, so it has to travel through time to go between two points. But because from the photon's perspective it's travel is instantaneous, it can't experience that time. So a photon doesn't know where it's going to land, until it does. And so until it does land, it could have landed anywhere. So when a photon is created, it travels out in all directions, like a wave, until it lands somewhere and the wave collapses.
The part that's hard to understand is the why.
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.