If the UK is anything like the US, there is no case for trademark infringement merely because someone is selling a service and refers to the product they service. Nominative use of a trademark is generally considered fair use (e.g. it is generally legal for someone who is selling parts for Ford cards to say we sell Ford parts in their advertisements even if they aren't officially affiliated with Ford) provided you don't give the impression that you are officially sanctioned or affiliated with whoever owns the trademark.
UPS and FedEx drivers have been working 10-12+ hour days 6-7 days a week since Thanksgiving.
Your Christmas will not be ruined because of a late package unless you value some item or trinket over spending time with your family. First world problems indeed.
In other words, poor people are screwed because they can't afford to fork over hundreds of dollars to Verislime for a series of prime numbers. Not to mention the fact that the average user has no idea about PKI or how to get or install a certificate (Where I work, we deal with the GSA which requires certificates for authentication and it is a never-ending headache for users).
And in the end, the people who you most want to prevent from spying on you will be able to spy on you anyways because PKI presents a centralized target for governments and they can merely bludgeon the CAs into giving them the ability to intercept stuff.
There was flooding with Floyd. Massive flooding.
Gas shortages could have been dealt with by eliminating "price gouging" laws (which really amounts to government theft of private property) and letting the price adjust for the lack of supply. It would have discouraged people from buying gas they didn't need (and where, pray tell, are you planning on driving to when no place has power and the roads are all closed).
Google "client side window decorations".
No, they are breaking Linux.
The GNOME people have managed to invade several core projects such as udev and have been busy working to integrate them with GNOME. In addition, they are trying to push the GNOME-centric Wayland to replace X.
Removing middle click paste is just the latest example of their arrogance. The GNOME developers generally adopt the attitude that the user is an idiot who can't wipe their own ass without one of them to help. Anytime you complain about a removed feature you are either "using it wrong" or GNOME was "not designed for users who wish to do X". If they kept to their own little corner, I would not have as much of a problem but they are doing their damnedest to turn the entire Linux ecosystem into one giant mess without any regards for the UNIX philosophy or even compatibility with other *nix systems such as the BSDs.
I'm from the area and this case has been rather prominently featured on the news.
The district attorneys in this state are well known for their corruption and disregard for the rights of the accused and/or of the innocent. This trial is only taking place one county over from where Mike Nifong persued his witchhunt against the Duke Lacrosse players. In addition, the SBI has been implicated in a large scandal in which evidence was faked and mishandled.
Most people here do not believe he is guilty but rather that this is a sham case in which a misandristic government and court system automatically assumes that the husband must be the one who killed his wife.
Obama is nothing but Bush in blackface. It is amazing how many people give him a pass because he is black and has a D besides his name.
What is even more laughable is the Nobel Peace Prize that was given to him.
The United States government is the largest criminal organization in the world. Bradley Manning exposed some of the war crimes routinely committed by the United States. That, in and of itself, makes him a hero. It takes no courage to invade another country that is drastically weaker than you are and to then shoot people (mostly civilians) who are simply defending their country from foreign invaders. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the Imperial US Government.
The Zimmerman trial has been nothing short of a farce from the get go. It is reminiscent of Soviet-era show trials because the race baiters have turned this into a witch-hunt.
1.The original probable cause affidavit was so riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies that even a 1L (first year law student) wouldn't make such a mistake. To put speculations in an affidavit and then to swear, under of penalty of perjury, that they are facts is perpetrating fraud upon the court. Affidavits are not places where you speculate or state what your gut feeling is or what you think might have happened. It is a place to state facts. In addition, deliberately omitting evidence from the affidavit that is exculpatory in nature is unethical. Even Alan Dershowitz, who is about as left as you can get, blasted their handiwork.
2.The media has been doing their damnedest to make this about race. Every thing from inventing new terms, like white hispanic, to altering Zimmerman's photo to make him appear whiter and only showing pictures of Trayvon Martin when he was much younger to make him appear more angelic and innocent. In addition, they have been working tirelessly to plant the idea of having riots into peoples minds by continuously bringing it up.
3.The prosecution's entire side was a joke. I mean, Rachel Jeantel changed her story so many times that you would need an entire notebook to keep track of all of them. It was also painfully obvious that she had been coached by the prosecution. The other "witnesses" weren't much better.
4.There is no evidence for murder and the prosecution knows it. Even if the jury convicts (most likely, out of fear for their life or just plain idiocy since jurors are picked based on their emotional susceptibility rather than their intelligence), it will be overturned so fast on appeal that they won't even know what hit them. The case for manslaughter isn't much better and introducing that AFTER the defense has rested is highly unethical on the part of both the judge and the prosecution.
5.Speaking of the judge, she is a life long democrat and has demonstrated very clear evidence of bias. When George Zimmerman refused to testify, she disparaged and criticized him. A defendant has the right not to testify and it is highly unethical for a judge to browbeat a defendant for that because you are not allowed to make a negative inference from an exercise of the 5th amendment.
6.Now we get evidence that the prosecution is, once again, withholding exculpatory evidence. To go after the whistleblower, who blew the whistle on their unethical and illegal activities, just demonstrates how truly execrable the prosecution is.
Regardless of what you think of George Zimmerman, regardless of what you think of Trayvon Martin, regardless of who you think is to blame, regardless of whether you think George Zimmerman was racist, you should not be supporting such a mockery of justice. Everyone accused of a crime deserves their change to have a proper, fair, and just trial. This is nothing of the sort; it is a show trial and a political witch hunt.
North Carolina is one of those places.
Felony hit and run is a Class H Felony (http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Documents/FelonyChart_12_01_11MaxChart.pdf). With no priors, the maximum you can get is 8 months in prison.
Felony death by motor vehicle (any death from a motor vehicle that is the result of driving while impaired) is normally treated as involuntary manslaughter (Class F, 20 months max with no priors) but can be upgraded to second degree murder (Class B1, 300 months for no prior offense) if there are aggravating circumstances (e.g. a prior history of DWI).
He already has a DWI.
DWI laws in this state are a joke. And when they finally get banned from driving a car (after half a dozen convictions or so), they are still allowed to go and drive a moped on the road.
Amongst other things, judges base sentences on the defendants remorse, or lack thereof, as well as their prior criminal history, motivations, and how likely they are to re-offend. This is not an anti-liberty position for his speech was never restricted; no one stopped him from being an idiot on Reddit and he is not being charged with a crime or harassed for what he said. But the judge absolutely has every right to use that when determining whether he is likely to offend (I needn't remind you about the bit that says anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law).
The rest of your argument was nullified by Marbury vs. Madison. You may wish to read up on judicial review and how it is the courts job to interpret the constitution.
Citation? No problem.
The problem is, that simply isn't how it works and it has never worked that way.
For example, there is something called the reasonable time and place restriction. If you try to hold a protest in front of the White House at 2am in the morning, you absolutely will be forced away by the police and them doing such is perfectly constitutional. The same goes for a courtroom; you cannot act out in court. If you disagree with a judge, the appropriate process is to appeal that decision. And, furthermore, things you say can be used against you in court (Look up Miranda Warning).