If the lid falls off your mailbox you have no claim against the USPS. Nor do you have any claim against the police if they, say, destroy your house.
ninja
joined 1 year ago
Poisons are ingested where as venoms are injected.
If you bite (or drink, etc.) it it's poison. If it bites (or stings, etc.) you it's venom.
I can absolutely see Texas looking at it the other way. "Your website can be accessed by our citizens? On you to comply with our laws." They then spit out a bunch of criminal charges that make things rather inconvenient for some instance hosts. The US reach into international banking systems is uncomfortably long.
The real problem question is about federation. You can post to an instance from any federated instance. If an account is created in one instance and the user posts to a federated instance are both liable? You have to be able to create accounts AND post to be subject to the law. Can one instance not allow posts but host accounts for participation in other instances to skirt around the law?
But if you don't vote for a dog the wrong type of dog might get elected!
Ahsoka continued a story off of Rebels that was, itself, continued off of Clone Wars. I'm unsure anyone that didn't at least watch rebels would enjoy Ahsoka.
That's just 1 year's sales. If the TV lasts 5 years it's raking in 5 times the data. 190M x 5 = 950M/year, and 5 seems conservative.
do you have to say it while flipping your finger up and down over your lips?
Official explained there had been a misunderstanding and the guidance staff had originally given applies only to people changing their names.
Oh, no! Not again!
People don't get a 'get out of war crimes' card by not being officially in the military. If they purposefully took hostile action in the conflict they're combatants, uniformed or not. The use of poison is a war crime.
Missed an opportunity to title it The Minecraft Family Robinson.
view more: next ›
I used NPR as the reference as an acceptably neutral reporting agency, but they didn't go back and update the article. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. https://ij.org/case/lech-v-city-of-greenwood/
This isn't a caveat. The city wasn't ever going to rebuild the house for him. Any compensation was always going to be monetary. The fact that he spent more money than he would have gotten isn't relevant. If someone crashes into and totals your car your replacement car isn't expected to be equally as old and used as the one you lost. You're awarded money and can purchase a replacement at your discretion.