35% of the parents who responded to a survey on filtering wanted an automatic block.

80% of all those who responded were in favour of no filtering of any kind.

Doesn't quite add up does it.

You hunt chicken with a rifle and I'm supposed to take you seriously?

And do cows really need to be hunted?

I don't know where you live but I'm pretty sure there aren't enough wild deer nearby to sustain the ~8 million population of the city I live in.

Sounds likes a new law is needed - the ability to vote for and terminate the HOA, after all the decisions should be made by tenants and strictly limited.

Are you serious? It's too low.

Why should anyone who works hard not be able to afford to buy they own property - that is grossly unfair.

I'd have to disagree with the legally sound bit, they can get away with going against the spirit of the constitution precisely because they are the highest judges and they know full well they won't be brought to book for going against the constitution.

The wording of the constitution is clear and easy to understand, but some of the decisions the supreme court make are often backed by twisted ideas and any decent person would see they are morally corrupt.

You missed something, some are saying that the level of the fine is unconstitutional.

You live like a king because TVs and other electronics and are so cheap now.

What do you mean you don't eat electronics, why not?

Oh and another thing, you talk of too much regulation but the whole reason we're in a multi-year downturn is because the financial markets were not properly regulated and the bankers fucked the economy.

I live in the UK and you're talking bollocks, unemployment is not exceptional, we have nothing like the poverty that the US has. We have far better minimum wages which combat poverty. there is no such thing as food stamps here. And of course the national health service is free to all so if you get sick it is not a problem financially (except for the time off work for some people).

And the Japanese guy disagrees too I see.

I don't earn great wages and I live in London and I still have plenty of spending money, food is not a concern.

Or is of such rubbish quality so as to be useless for evidence purposes.

That longer time makes more sense, if you're going to sleep before 10 then the odds are you can make the purchase just before 6am...

Still stupid nannying though.

"a position that could arguably destroy all information-only sites if upheld since without consideration these sites cannot hold their users to their terms of use."

The early web survived fine without Terms of use, if I buy a newspaper - it doesn't have 'terms of use', 8bit games didn't have 'terms of use'. In the US can such terms trump laws - a bizarre situation if you ask me.

Terms of use are not necessary because there are already laws in place and because sites have administrators.

Really - who reads them and does anyone other than lawyers really give a damn what they say.

And what site would not be viable without terms and conditions? The article holds up Wikipedia as an example, but as we all know there are plenty of trolls on Wikipedia who routinely flout the terms of use there. Spammers are going to spam, no-one reads the terms and sees 'you will not spam' and then doesn't.

Eh?

Ooops, the most unbelievable bit is due to physics, you would not be able to catch on to anything after falling 3 floors, especially not a cable, Mr Indiana Jones.