ArmyofGnomes writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski delivered Monday on President Obama's promise to back 'net neutrality' — but he went much further than merely seeking to expand rules that prohibit ISPs from filtering or blocking net traffic by proposing that they cover all broadband connections, including data connections for smartphones. Genachowski stated: 'I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet. ... In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.'"
What often happens is they get donated to book bank-type programs which give away the books for free. I've been volunteering at one for a few years, and we get a lot of free books from publishers like that.
He can't challenge the validity in court unless he is harmed by the law - he has to have standing to sue. If he gets sued now, he can bring up the issues.
The Associated Press, apparently.
In fact, in Miller v. California, the following test was given for obscenity:
- the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
- the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
- the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
This test is still in use today.
IANAL, but this does have a legal history in the US and is much better than it used to be. All these doom-and-gloom "what happened to the US" posts ignore that obscenity law used to be much, much stricter.
One billion yuan = $146 million, not $146,000.
My bad - he has not received money from Wikimedia ever. Even if he did have a salary, it would be to administer, not to create content.
He does make his living off Wikipedia... it's called a salary.
You may remember a case we discussed this April in which a Boston College student's computers and other electronics were seized after he allegedly sent an email outing another student as gay. The search warrant made sure to note the student's ever-so-suspicious use of "two different operating systems," one of which was "a black screen with a white font which he uses prompt commands on." Now, the EFF reports that a Massachusetts judge has thrown out the search warrant and declared the search and seizure illegal. Quoting: "In her order Thursday, Justice Margot Botsford rejected the Commonwealth's theory that sending a hoax email might be unlawful under a Massachusetts computer crime statute barring the 'unauthorized access' to a computer, concluding that there could be no violation of what was only a 'hypothetical internet use policy.' Thursday's decision now stands as the highest state court opinion to reject the dangerous theory that terms of service violations constitute computer 'hacking' crimes. Justice Botsford further found that details offered by police as corroboration of other alleged offenses were insufficient and did not establish probable cause for the search." The court order (PDF) is available for viewing, and the EFF has broken down the significant arguments against the Commonwealth's claims.
If you RTFA, the summary is pretty inaccurate. His shift on coal was at most relatively minor, from "I don't know if this can happen" to "If it can happen, it will take a long time to develop." On nuclear, his opinions haven't changed at all. I think his statements contain a remarkable amount of sense.
I don't have mod points right now, but this AC is quite obviously a troll (re: last paragraph).
The US Constitution defines treason as "levying war against [the US], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This isn't it.
That's not true at all. The U.S. has a long history of various forms of electoral fraud. See for example this book.