Unless I'm misreading it badly, he's not trying to justify the death penalty for carjacking; he's explaining why he wouldn't mourn for a carjacker. And I bet the typical just-robbed homeowner would agree.
So's your house and all your stuff. Doesn't stop people from feeling violated when their home gets robbed. People are not always strictly rational, and any successful society has to recognize that and deal with it.
sadly, the legal definition of good faith (as described at legal-disctionary.thefreedictionary.com) has no connection with due diligence; it's all about taking things at face value. If the automatic scanning program says it's a hit, that's enough for a good-faith belief, until enough bad hits are revealed to show that the scanner is not deserving of that faith. (Which also means that copyright holders have pretty much zero incentive to improve such scanners until forced to.)
The problem is that filing a take down notice only requires two assertions: that you own or are an agent for someone who owns the copyright being (allegedly) infringed, and that you have a good faith belief that there is infringement happening. The first is subject to perjury penalties, which (perhaps unintentionally) prevents prank takedowns from non-copyright-holders. The latter, however, is nearly impossible to disprove without a smoking-gun email, leaving anyone who really is a copyright holder free to scatter takedown requests like rice at a wedding.
It's STOL so it can work with smaller carriers, because the Marines insisted (they don't like being dependent on big Navy carriers for ground support flights, because sometimes they're not there). If it were just how many could fit on a regular carrier, they'd want them as small as possible instead of adding bulk and weight. And that would be fine except that adding the STOL equipment makes the plane bulkier (bad for stealth), heavier (bad for speed), and less maneuverable (barring vectored thrust tricks which sacrifice speed).
The Harrier was and is an engineering masterpiece, but it's still complicated to maintain, difficult to fly to its full potential, and neither stealth nor high speed were in its design goals. It's good at what it's meant to be, but it's not intended to be all things.
what's ironic is that one of China's more recent models appears to be based on the F-35 but without the attempt at VTOL hampering the other design goals and running up the cost.
Ick. Sounds like you got picked at random and the guy felt he had to go through all the motions he could think of. I think maybe I'll start taking that 'we will help if you get audited' offer from the online tax filing service
They are privately held. Hobby Lobby stock is not publicly traded.
I would have thought that would be pretty much a no-op. "Here's my W2, I took the standard deduction." What could they look for?
they didn't get the half million. Kickstarter shut it down before the transfers.
from what I've read, the interpretation is that you may not be forced to _create_ evidence that may be used to convict you at the request of a government entity. Answering a question from a government employee is creating statements that didn't already exist. Filling out a form is creating documents that didn't exist. Evidence that they already have can be followed up. Evidence that is known to already exist can be demanded (blood samples, DNA samples, papers in a safe), and the fifth won't help because you're not creating anything.
Following this interpretation, data on the drive already exists. Taking the fifth when asked if you know the password may be allowable, but once knowledge of the password has been admitted, it's down to the "demanding evidence that exists" category and the fifth doesn't help.
I'm not saying that's the ideal answer, but there is a certain logic to the position.
It's not illegal for you to do those things. It's illegal for him to accept money for it if he doesn't have a license pass you the data that his equipment has captured.
Because one of the government's justifications in the past has been that it's not really that much of a hardship, and judges tend to try to avoid flat out saying "my predecessors and colleagues were idiots and their rulings were bullshit." So instead we're going with the "well, that may have been the case before, but not so much now, so we're going to rethink this."
photons and neutrinos both travel at approximately the same speed in vacuum - "the speed of light"
However, when it comes to going through a non-vacuum, like a star, neutrinos have a straight shot because they don't interact with anything and the photons have to run through a pinball game (or a pachinko game, if you've seen those) until they actually get out. Best estimates of the time difference to date are about 3 hours.
Because of that, they would expect to see the light about 3 hours after seeing the neutrino burst, but in this case it looks like it was 7+ hours instead.
This guy (if I'm understanding it right) is saying that even "in a vacuum" light does enough zig-zagging to add a few hours to the transit time of a 163000 lightyear trip.
Perhaps it should only outlaw things that we know how to reduce to mathematics. Software is a gimme. Lots of mechanical engineering stuff can be reduced to math; that's how we can simulate it. So maybe not so much need for patents there. Serious biochemistry (e.g. drug research) isn't fully simulatable yet (hence folding@home), and arguably that's the stuff that needs to keep patents. I'm not sure where something like chip fabrication technology falls on that scale, but I think it's closer to the "not quite simulatable yet" side...