Rylinks

this is like saying you don't own a lock because it won't open if you've lost the key

it's the most non-renewable resource, but it also goes away whether we use it or not.

I'm not an expert in this, but i think the first-sale doctrine only applies if the phone is in similar condition as the new ones you get from apple (or if it's used, you say that it's used, etc). The seller of the wiretapped phone would probably not be protected.

I do not think it is fraud to print the Apple iPhone X US-version 64GB Black code on a box that does in fact contain an Apple iPhone X US-version 64GB Black

Trademarking your UPC would not work, as someone reselling your product is protected by the first-sale doctrine. If I buy a bottle of Pepsi(tm), I can use Pepsi's trademarks when selling that bottle to someone else.

if you have tons of proof about a murder, it's almost certain to fall under one of the exceptions to the doctrine. e.g, if law enforcement would have discovered the evidence anyway, it is not excluded.

there's plenty of people who think defending a criminal at all is ethically dubious. Depriving criminal defendants of the most effective defense by applying social pressure to their attorneys is not a good road to walk down.

why? I do think there is a historical case, but what about freedom of expression makes it harder to build bridges, and is there a way to build bridges anyway?

How is making prisoners pay for the prison any different than a court fining someone convicted of a crime?

Will banks accept a faxed photograph to rebut a claim that the membership was cancelled?

Much of professors' salaries are paid from grants. The professor who barely does any teaching is (hopefully) pulling in research money.

I don't know whether this is feasible at the temperature gradients created by data centers, but it's not prohibited by physics. If there are chemical species in the water that are stable at 24 C and not 19 C, the fish can harvest these for chemical energy after they have traveled the ten meters.

This is probably more relevant at temperature gradients greater than 5C, but it's thermodynamically possible.

I agree, and if I were forced to answer I would say that even the CA constitution probably doesn't apply to Facebook et. al.

I think the point I have in mind is that there are less restrictions on speech as the venue becomes more private, and this is for good reasons, large websites as a platform for mass conversation are relatively new, and come with their own benefits and drawbacks when they choose to restrict speech. And because these trade-offs are new, the debate should be about these pros and cons, rather than flat statements that censorship is bad, or that private companies can do whatever they want, no matter how severe.

It should be a policy debate. The CA constitution probably doesn't apply, but the legislature can intervene anyway, and I don't think an argument that says "these platforms are important enough to modern-day communication that they should do so in some manner" is completely insane.

This is wrong, even in the United States. There are rare circumstances where a company's property is open to the public to such an extent that they become subject to first amendment restrictions (e.g. Marsh v. Alabama). Some states, such as California, have even greater restrictions on private parties in their state constitution. CA's constitutional speech protections prevent shopping malls from expelling petitioners from their premises, even if the mall disagrees with the speech.

Extending this body of law to, say, Facebook would have problems, of course. But I don't think it's so clear that all sensible adults know that censorship is only something the government does, and are happy letting any corporate behavior, no matter how extreme, pass without scrutiny.