I've just finished reading the Conclusion, it doesn't make bold/outlandish claims AFAICT, just moderate(d) ones. Now to plow through the paper to see when the Conclusions are justified.
Re: Re: I can't quite get my head around how this is legal.
Individuals can do anything unless there's a law that specifically forbids something/that thing.
Governments, on the other hand, can do nothing unless there's a law that specifically authorizes a particular action.
The police shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts (especially with NDAs) unless there's a law that specifically allows it. Elected officials should be allowed to revoke signing authority that's been given.
Actually, I came to say: So, when a church doesn't pay taxes, it means everyone else has to pay more taxes, so how about charging taxes back to a church when it says something that offends someone?
That and: for the government, isn't it the case that the government is allowed to do do nothing, unless there's a law specifically authorizing it to do something?
D'oh... That sentence - Ff the Globe's article on this story, where the sentence- with the type should have read:
Suppose that in the Globe's article, the sentence "In a potentially..." that the word "ruling" as a clickable link, it would be linked to a search page...
FTA: *[Note: Ruling not provided by the Globe and Mail for whatever reason. -1 to G&M's JOURNALISM skill.]
Ff the Globe's article on this story, where the sentence "In a potentially significant 5-2 ruling" had the word "ruling" as a clickable link, it would be to a search page for the word "ruling" in all G&M articles (usually from ten years ago to fifteen ago, plus yesterday), not to the actual ruling itself as anyone familiar with the Web would expect.
It's one of the main reasons I don't go to MSM news sites for information. It friggin' drives me bonkers.
On the post: Study Suggests Shutting Down Filesharing Sites Would Hurt Music Industry, New Artists
Re: Re: It's not even an "update", it's a re-hash, using extreme "statistics".
http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_papers/papers/qed_wp_1354.pdf
I've just finished reading the Conclusion, it doesn't make bold/outlandish claims AFAICT, just moderate(d) ones. Now to plow through the paper to see when the Conclusions are justified.
On the post: The Same FCC That Ignored Science To Kill Net Neutrality Has Created An 'Office Of Economics & Analysis'
Maybe the FCC means 'Analysis'
On the post: First Amendment Lawsuit Results In Louisiana Police Department Training Officers To Respect Citizens With Cameras
I hope they'll make a hard copy of the roll call.
On the post: Harris Stingray Nondisclosure Agreement Forbids Cops From Telling Legislators About Surveillance Tech
Re: Re: I can't quite get my head around how this is legal.
Governments, on the other hand, can do nothing unless there's a law that specifically authorizes a particular action.
The police shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts (especially with NDAs) unless there's a law that specifically allows it. Elected officials should be allowed to revoke signing authority that's been given.
On the post: Harris Stingray Nondisclosure Agreement Forbids Cops From Telling Legislators About Surveillance Tech
Re: Re: I can't quite get my head around how this is legal.
On the post: Sarajevo's City Government Says No One Can Use The Name 'Sarajevo' Without Its Permission
Up next...
On the post: Why Are The People Who Whined About Wheeler's Net Neutrality Rules Being '400 Pages' Silent About Pai's Being '539 Pages'
Re: Re: How does this guy get compensated?
There, fixed it for you.
On the post: Jury Awards Couple No Damages For Bungled Marijuana Raid Predicated On Wet Tea Leaves
Now that the jury has decided that the cops were incompetent
On the post: NSA Denies Prior Knowledge Of Meltdown, Spectre Exploits; Claims It Would 'Never' Harm Companies By Withholding Vulns
Well, given how the NSA mangles language...
Except for the parts where every word in their statement means something completely different from what the rest of the world thinks it does.
On the post: Indiana Legislator Wants To Force NFL Team To Hand Out Refunds To Fans 'Offended' By Kneeling Players
Re:
So, when a church doesn't pay taxes, it means everyone else has to pay more taxes, so how about charging taxes back to a church when it says something that offends someone?
On the post: DHS's New Airport Face-Scanning Program Is Expensive, Flawed, And Illegal
Re: Re: it gets worse
Uh, aren't those exceptions called "Amendments"?
That and: for the government, isn't it the case that the government is allowed to do do nothing, unless there's a law specifically authorizing it to do something?
Y'know, the reverse of the case for people.
On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis
More Europeans have read/studied Sartre.
On the post: FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Supporters Were Clearly Wrong Because Twitter Still Works The Day After Repeal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/08/intercepted-podcast-say-hello-to-my-little-hands/
The whole episode is worth listening.
On the post: Five Below, Trendy Retailer, Sues 10 Below, Ice Cream Seller, For Trademark Infringement
Re: Look Out Below
On the post: New Documents And Testimony Shows Officers Lied About Their Role In An Arrested Teen's Death
Re: I remember this story.
On the post: Two Separate Studies Show That The Vast Majority Of People Who Said They Support Ajit Pai's Plan... Were Fake
Re:
On the post: Canadian Supreme Court Says Privacy Protections Apply To Sent Text Messages Obtained From The Recipient
Re: Globe & Mail's clickable words policy
Suppose that in the Globe's article, the sentence "In a potentially..." that the word "ruling" as a clickable link, it would be linked to a search page...
Too early in the morning, apparently.
On the post: Canadian Supreme Court Says Privacy Protections Apply To Sent Text Messages Obtained From The Recipient
Globe & Mail's clickable words policy
Ff the Globe's article on this story, where the sentence "In a potentially significant 5-2 ruling" had the word "ruling" as a clickable link, it would be to a search page for the word "ruling" in all G&M articles (usually from ten years ago to fifteen ago, plus yesterday), not to the actual ruling itself as anyone familiar with the Web would expect.
It's one of the main reasons I don't go to MSM news sites for information. It friggin' drives me bonkers.
On the post: Why I Changed My Mind On Net Neutrality
Re:
On the post: Navy Officer Working For The NSA Caught Trying To Search Her Boyfriend's Son's Phone
The son was displaying the indicia of terrorists.
Next >>