Did the warrant detail how this was surely wrong, but once the judge grants it, it is certain to be upheld under the good faith exception? Or was that just verbal?
Peaceniks and environmentalists cause violence. We've already been there a long time. FYI, cannabis causes both overly peaceful and also violent behavior. Whatever is handy at the moment.
Yeah, another con is the generally high impact factor of complete bullshit. On the other hand, researchers hoping to accomplish anything probably won't quite flock to "papers" of that nature. I suppose some of the disciplines that are more forgiving of less empirical research may be more prone to cite bs, but people who have problems with facts and rigour already are problematic anyway.
Can't wait for the first citation of the Time Cube, or the Chinese government admitting their space program is a sham and that all the rockets they sent up actually exploded upon collision with the firmament.
Honestly, i can see this abused for the political agenda, though.
Corporations own anti-trust and anti-monopoly as much as any other regulations, and trust/monopoly regulations hardly address all the problems.
You realize that original telecom and things like railroad monopolies were allowed due to there not being enough space on the planet for everyone to string their own cable or lay their own tracks. In other industries as well, we go through cycles of merging with short periods of enforced breakup, only to allow greater mergers in the next cycle.
I am all for monopoly and trust regulation, but they don't stop all the problems, and neither does the market. Neither have stopped corporations of being abusive in a million other ways, and both are as susceptible to capture as the "other regulations" which you descry so much. Better regulation and enforcement is what we need, and need to keep intact, regardless as to what it is regulating. All of it is a "band-aid" as long as corporate interests can alter the regulation and enforcement regimes.
But as far as anti-trust and the free market go, if you want to look outside the NN debate, they have never stopped abuse of workers, raised wages, stopped corporations from affecting other laws, or stopped them from poisoning people and the air we breathe, the land we live on, and the water we use, never mind the non-human majority of life on this planet. I don't see how those operating in the internet sphere are any different.
Public infrastructure is regulated by the states, except what is interstate. Are you going to tell all the public utilities commissions (and the states themselves) that the FCC is taking over their bailiwick?
The manufacturer insists it instructs law enforcement users the tests are not meant to replace lab work but only to establish probable cause.
Manufacturer produces words as part of the product. Nothing this unreliable should be a method of establishing probable cause. They also don't care that prosecutors use this for a lot more than probable cause. They are just happy making steady income from law enforcement, one of those untouchable parts of government, no matter how bad.
That's a weak excuse, considering the false assumption of probable cause leads to Fourth Amendment violations at the absolute minimum.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
No, i think that the point is, no one cares Obama said that. Whether it is an appeal to authority, or an appeal to suspected party ties, mentioning that Obama said this hasn't gained any traction any time someone brings it up.
That could be taken as an argumentum ad hominem, only guess where the article was published, and for which audience it was written? (Hint: Its and audience with a large prior understanding and consensus opinion about things like the RIAA.) It's not about being tainted, it's just that if you are agreeing with the RIAA, many (most?) here will disagree with you on that same point. Why would it matter who is making the point? Bad claims and ideas are bad whether it is the RIAA or anyone else promoting them.
But i find it odd that you didn't make any claims of a bad argument due to guilt by association insinuations with respect to the law firm and the newspaper.
I can't prove that CCC is literally a front group for the RIAA, but they certainly complain about everyone with respect to getting paid except the recording industry itself which literally cheats them. Or seeing how many of the members of whom we hear are bigger names, maybe they don't care to notice the great masses of signed artists who never get paid squat because they only pay the big acts. I'm sorry but some guy using a clip of your music, or even YouTube itself, or radio stations, are not making the money that the recording industry and it's useless royalty services and lobbying groups make off of artists. Maybe if they got paid reasonably by these groups which exist solely to leech off artists, they would have less to complain about. Then they might have a case v Google and other entrenched legacy industry wannabes. But blame them for their actual wrongs and failings, not made-up crap.
On the post: Verizon Lobbies FCC To Block States From Protecting Broadband Privacy, Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: So Verizon once again putting it's proverbial foot in its mouth?
On the post: Verizon Lobbies FCC To Block States From Protecting Broadband Privacy, Net Neutrality
On the post: Collateral Damage Not Russian Site-Blocking's Only Failure: Pirate Video Market Has Doubled As Well
Re:
On the post: First Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Overturn Playpen Suppression Order
Write once, search everywhere.
On the post: Energy Group Labels Creators Of Video Game As 'Eco-Terrorists'
On the post: Energy Group Labels Creators Of Video Game As 'Eco-Terrorists'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does...
On the post: Energy Group Labels Creators Of Video Game As 'Eco-Terrorists'
Re:
On the post: Move By Top Chinese University Could Mean Journal Impact Factors Begin To Lose Their Influence
Can't wait for the first citation of the Time Cube, or the Chinese government admitting their space program is a sham and that all the rockets they sent up actually exploded upon collision with the firmament.
Honestly, i can see this abused for the political agenda, though.
On the post: Wyden's Reform Bill Would Also Deter Misuse Of NSA Powers To Compel Tech Company Assistance
Re:
On the post: Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You realize that original telecom and things like railroad monopolies were allowed due to there not being enough space on the planet for everyone to string their own cable or lay their own tracks. In other industries as well, we go through cycles of merging with short periods of enforced breakup, only to allow greater mergers in the next cycle.
I am all for monopoly and trust regulation, but they don't stop all the problems, and neither does the market. Neither have stopped corporations of being abusive in a million other ways, and both are as susceptible to capture as the "other regulations" which you descry so much. Better regulation and enforcement is what we need, and need to keep intact, regardless as to what it is regulating. All of it is a "band-aid" as long as corporate interests can alter the regulation and enforcement regimes.
But as far as anti-trust and the free market go, if you want to look outside the NN debate, they have never stopped abuse of workers, raised wages, stopped corporations from affecting other laws, or stopped them from poisoning people and the air we breathe, the land we live on, and the water we use, never mind the non-human majority of life on this planet. I don't see how those operating in the internet sphere are any different.
Public infrastructure is regulated by the states, except what is interstate. Are you going to tell all the public utilities commissions (and the states themselves) that the FCC is taking over their bailiwick?
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
The manufacturer insists it instructs law enforcement users the tests are not meant to replace lab work but only to establish probable cause.
Manufacturer produces words as part of the product. Nothing this unreliable should be a method of establishing probable cause. They also don't care that prosecutors use this for a lot more than probable cause. They are just happy making steady income from law enforcement, one of those untouchable parts of government, no matter how bad.
That's a weak excuse, considering the false assumption of probable cause leads to Fourth Amendment violations at the absolute minimum.
No one really has to try anymore.
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
Re: Re: He Was Targeted
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
Re: Cheap test kits
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No reason to stop doing what they're doing
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
Re:
On the post: Man Gets $37,500 Payout After Field Drug Test Says Donut Crumbs Are Methamphetamines
Re: Re: Re:
No.
Litmus paper fairly reliably indicates what it is meant to.
On the post: Finally, RIAA Front Group Admits That Forcing YouTube To Police Site Doesn't Work Well
Re:
That could be taken as an argumentum ad hominem, only guess where the article was published, and for which audience it was written? (Hint: Its and audience with a large prior understanding and consensus opinion about things like the RIAA.) It's not about being tainted, it's just that if you are agreeing with the RIAA, many (most?) here will disagree with you on that same point. Why would it matter who is making the point? Bad claims and ideas are bad whether it is the RIAA or anyone else promoting them.
But i find it odd that you didn't make any claims of a bad argument due to guilt by association insinuations with respect to the law firm and the newspaper.
I can't prove that CCC is literally a front group for the RIAA, but they certainly complain about everyone with respect to getting paid except the recording industry itself which literally cheats them. Or seeing how many of the members of whom we hear are bigger names, maybe they don't care to notice the great masses of signed artists who never get paid squat because they only pay the big acts. I'm sorry but some guy using a clip of your music, or even YouTube itself, or radio stations, are not making the money that the recording industry and it's useless royalty services and lobbying groups make off of artists. Maybe if they got paid reasonably by these groups which exist solely to leech off artists, they would have less to complain about. Then they might have a case v Google and other entrenched legacy industry wannabes. But blame them for their actual wrongs and failings, not made-up crap.
On the post: European Parliament Agrees Text For Key ePrivacy Regulation; Online Advertising Industry Hates It
Re:
I am thinking "expropriate" should be used like "defenestrate". For fun and language-creep. K-I-L-L-E-D: Revoked.
Next >>