If only the author of a defamatory statement were eligible to be sued then absolutely nothing would stop defamatory statements from propagating ad infinitum. The author could ask a friend, or even create a separate legal corporate entity and have the content hosted with no threat of reprisal. That doesn't make sense to me. The judge's comments about the attitude, however, are full of shit.
The lack of evidence for the rule annoyed me. The people sitting next to me who thought they knew better and wanted to be special f*cking snowflakes who didn't have to turn off their phone annoyed me a hell of a lot more.
Note that the amendment only restricts funds voted for in this particular Defence Appropriation budget. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the case that the black programs pull their money from all over the map to prevent any disclosure of their existence or their costs?
I'd like to throw a +1 out there to those attempting to differentiate between Corporate Speech and Human Speech and concluding that they do not deserve equal treatment.
I think we have enough defences with "You do not have a constitutional right to your business model" and "Saying it don't make it so" and so on and so forth without needing to try and shove Google into the 1st Amendment.
To Oldster and and Anonymous Coward:
You say that the message is not "in Google's page" but "above it"
Umm, browser windows generally display one <html></html> block within which is one <body></body> block. So any valid content *is* by definition in Google's page.
And if Rogers is relying on browsers to display invalid content then the matter is, frankly, worse because their tehcnology is using an extremely ugly and unreliable hack.
Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (which doesn't actually represent any *Canadian* recording industry companies) had this to say about the recently announced intent of the Canadian gov't to focus on copyright in the near future:
"We're concerned about hackers, the people who attack the business models," said Mr. Henderson.
Sigh.
Quoated in The National Post
Joe wasn't quoting him to prove anything? So the quote taking up 20-30% of the article was there for filler? The paragraph of analysis of the Cadillac analogy was decorative? I do not understand how attacking who Joe quotes is weak. Joe obviously selected the quote and its place in the article is prominent and is therefore deserving of analysis and criticism.
As for Friedman, shall I mention Monetarism which he himself rejected in a June 6, 2006 interview in the Financial Times? His laissez-fair absolutism that despite rising market prices has resulted in a disproportionate growth in income disparity? Natural unemployment rates? Chile is perhaps outside the scope of this discussion.
You are right, however, that if I addressed Joe's own text then my rejection of the Friedman quote would have had more weight. Joe said 'by demanding that lawyers are well-verse in a wide variety of legal subjects, the Bar prevents the emergence of legal "technicians", narrowly-trained professionals that could offer cut-rate legal services in areas specific to their training' I find this statement to be false. We can already hire divorce lawyers or tax lawyers or contract lawyers, in general the field is too broad to be mastered by any one individual. To imply that we need lawyers more narrowly trained is to imagine that court cases rarely proceed beyond the bounds expected by one party. It is also a flawed premise that a specialist would charge less than a generalist, this is certainly not the case in other fields such as programming, medicine, or construction.
As for the AMA, to imply that American drug prices are drastically higher because of their interference is to ignore the evidence of prices in other western countries that also have professional medical associations and that have much lower drug costs - e.g. Canada, France, the UK. The single largest factor in drug costs in the US is the poorly organized medical insurance industry and the lack of a single-payer drug system with authority to negotiate.
Please do not imagine that I imagine these organizations to be without flaws. I do hold the position that we would be better of with well run versions of them than without.
Legal reasons
are the best reasons
Dear Mr. Mullins,
Please note that the USDOJ reminds us that it is unconstitutional to treat being homeless as a crime.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/643766/download
Cheers.
PS bite me.
If only the author of a defamatory statement were eligible to be sued then absolutely nothing would stop defamatory statements from propagating ad infinitum. The author could ask a friend, or even create a separate legal corporate entity and have the content hosted with no threat of reprisal. That doesn't make sense to me. The judge's comments about the attitude, however, are full of shit.
CALEA
The second amendment seems to create a conflict with CALEA.
The lack of evidence for the rule annoyed me. The people sitting next to me who thought they knew better and wanted to be special f*cking snowflakes who didn't have to turn off their phone annoyed me a hell of a lot more.
Black funds make this irrelevant.
Note that the amendment only restricts funds voted for in this particular Defence Appropriation budget. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the case that the black programs pull their money from all over the map to prevent any disclosure of their existence or their costs?
Earlier than Three Wolf Moon
My introduction to the genre was this brilliant IT review of a children's book.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2VDKZ4X1F992Q/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0448421658&nodeID=283155&store=books
Algorithms are Soylent Green
I'd like to throw a +1 out there to those attempting to differentiate between Corporate Speech and Human Speech and concluding that they do not deserve equal treatment.
I think we have enough defences with "You do not have a constitutional right to your business model" and "Saying it don't make it so" and so on and so forth without needing to try and shove Google into the 1st Amendment.
To Oldster and and Anonymous Coward:
You say that the message is not "in Google's page" but "above it"
Umm, browser windows generally display one <html></html> block within which is one <body></body> block. So any valid content *is* by definition in Google's page.
And if Rogers is relying on browsers to display invalid content then the matter is, frankly, worse because their tehcnology is using an extremely ugly and unreliable hack.
And the NY fake shopping guide they published?
In the same bloody edition? What a bunch of ass hats.
CRIA wants to make it so
Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (which doesn't actually represent any *Canadian* recording industry companies) had this to say about the recently announced intent of the Canadian gov't to focus on copyright in the near future: "We're concerned about hackers, the people who attack the business models," said Mr. Henderson. Sigh. Quoated in The National Post
Re: Re: Friedman?
Joe wasn't quoting him to prove anything? So the quote taking up 20-30% of the article was there for filler? The paragraph of analysis of the Cadillac analogy was decorative? I do not understand how attacking who Joe quotes is weak. Joe obviously selected the quote and its place in the article is prominent and is therefore deserving of analysis and criticism.
As for Friedman, shall I mention Monetarism which he himself rejected in a June 6, 2006 interview in the Financial Times? His laissez-fair absolutism that despite rising market prices has resulted in a disproportionate growth in income disparity? Natural unemployment rates? Chile is perhaps outside the scope of this discussion.
You are right, however, that if I addressed Joe's own text then my rejection of the Friedman quote would have had more weight. Joe said 'by demanding that lawyers are well-verse in a wide variety of legal subjects, the Bar prevents the emergence of legal "technicians", narrowly-trained professionals that could offer cut-rate legal services in areas specific to their training' I find this statement to be false. We can already hire divorce lawyers or tax lawyers or contract lawyers, in general the field is too broad to be mastered by any one individual. To imply that we need lawyers more narrowly trained is to imagine that court cases rarely proceed beyond the bounds expected by one party. It is also a flawed premise that a specialist would charge less than a generalist, this is certainly not the case in other fields such as programming, medicine, or construction.
As for the AMA, to imply that American drug prices are drastically higher because of their interference is to ignore the evidence of prices in other western countries that also have professional medical associations and that have much lower drug costs - e.g. Canada, France, the UK. The single largest factor in drug costs in the US is the poorly organized medical insurance industry and the lack of a single-payer drug system with authority to negotiate.
Please do not imagine that I imagine these organizations to be without flaws. I do hold the position that we would be better of with well run versions of them than without.
Friedman?
Given that his ideas were proven inapplicable in the real world even before he died I am not sure why you think that quoting him proves anything.