Is there some reason you think people can't handle criticizing/dismantling both?
Perhaps the fact that I have seen very little attention paid to the epidemic of sexual abuse in public schools, while there are press articles about the significantly fewer number of priest sex scandals. As an example, I am only aware of one news source which discussed the involvement of Graham Spanier in the cover up of child sex abuse accusations that occurred before the Jerry Sandusky case came up.
I have no idea. Do you listen to what Catholic leaders say? Did you before you knew about the sex scandals?
Of course, I would also argue that you are wrong about public school administrators. Most of them do set themselves up as moral authorities. They are frequently heard talking about how important it is to be "tolerant" (as they define tolerance). Most public school administrators tell children how they should behave.
Right, let's just continue to ignore the problem with pedophilia in the schools (where most of us have a say and can actually do something) and continue to yell and holler about pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church (where, not only do few of us have any say, but only a few more are actually connected in any way). Yeah. that's the ticket. If I make fun of the Roman Catholic Church for its failures on this issue I don't have to spend any time thinking that maybe I should do something about it where I can.
They didn't they got two colossal teacher's unions to devote efforts to moving them between schools so they could continue to molest children. If you examine the incidence of child sexual abuse between the Catholic Church in the United States and the public schools in the United States at the time the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church was at its highest the incidents were higher on a per child basis in the public schools involving teachers than in the Catholic Church.
I know that it is true that those who make use of spectrum are considered to merely license the use of it from the government. If the FCC can under current law take back the license at any time without having a reason, than they can take back the license for what you called an "unconstitutional" reason. How would you prove that they had a reason, since you said that they did not need one? Let alone prove that the reason is unconstitutional?
The FCC does not require any justification for taking back spectrum as the licensees are not to claim ownership over it.
I am pretty sure that the courts would disagree with that, at least I hope so. Because if the FCC does not requite any justification for taking back spectrum that means that they could shut down a carrier because it failed to sufficiently support the political agenda of those running the FCC.
According to Thomas Jefferson that is not the case, "...stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent." That is, agreements such as the KORUS free trade agreement may be dropped by either party whenever they become inconvenient, but an actual ratified treaty may only be changed by mutual agreement between the two countries.
The repeat was not for you. I figured that you would understand what I had posted in the context of what you had posted. However, I have frequently had people other than the poster I replied to take issue with something I have posted because they have ignored the context created by the post I replied to. I attempted to preempt such things by restating my point in a way less reliant on the context of your post.
Apparently you missed the point that the judge is merely telling them that if he changes his plea to "Not guilty by reason of insanity" (from "Not Guilty" which is the default plea, since he did not enter a plea) he may need to submit to these drugs in order to support the insanity claim. The courts have consistently ruled that when a defendant claims that they should not be held accountable for crimes they have committed because they were insane at the time (and may still be insane) the burden of proof of insanity is on the defendant (the defendant is essentially admitting they committed the crime, but claiming they should not be held responsible because they were not in control of their faculties at the time).
I will repeat, in this case the "truth serum" will not be administered, if it is administered, to establish whether or not he committed the crime. It will be administered to determine if he is truly insane (or was truly insane) or if he is attempting to fake the symptoms of insanity.
What law gives the FCC or the FTC (or any other administrative agency) the authority to issue such a rule? (I'm not saying they do not have the authority, but your assertion that they do does not make it so).
It is not clear to me from the article if the treaty specifies the list of exceptions to "circumvention prohibition" as the only exceptions allowable (which happen to be the same as the list in the DMCA) or if it merely specifies the list given in the DMCA (although my reading of the article causes me to believe it is the former). If by some chance the treaty is written in the latter manner, then it is simply a matter of Congress amending the DMCA.
Actually, under U.S. law, the KORUS free trade agreement is not actually a treaty. It is instead a "congressional-executive agreement". That is, rather than being signed by the President and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate it was passed by simple majorities of both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Which means that under U.S. law it is no more binding than any other law. Congress may pass a law changing it at any time (as far as U.S. law is concerned).
I will restate this. The KORUS free trade agreement is not a ratified treaty, which would be negotiated by the President and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. It is no more "the law of the land" than any other law passed by Congress and, under U.S. law, may be amended by Congress at any time (subject to the same provisions as any other law). If Congress passes a law modifying the agreement (which is what this is, it is not actually a treaty), that modification supersedes the previous law (agreement). If South Korea was unaware of this, they should pay closer attention to U.S. law before signing an agreement with the U.S.
Because after all, atheists never supported any crackpot "science" either that is why the atheistic Soviet Union suppressed all opposition to Trofim Lysenko.
I agree that it reads like he would fight every attempt to take anything down from the site, but it could mean a much more pragmatic approach. It could even mean that they would take an approach that would make them only barely distinguishable from the sites he was criticizing as too PC. My hope that his meaning is a somewhat combative, pragmatic approach: if they know the law is against them hosting the file, they will take it down; if they believe that the law allows them to host the file, they will fight to the bitter end, stuff that is in the grey area they will fight until the courts make it clear (taking one of two attitudes "we think this should be legal, but the law is not clear," and "we think the law is unclear here and the courts need to clarify the meaning of the law, we will abide by the court's decision.")
The question is whether he meant exactly what he said, or if he failed to think it all the way through. Did he mean that any 3D printing file that anyone uploads to their site, even if the copyright on the file belongs to someone else would remain on their site until a court orders them to take it down? Which is the literal interpretation of the words he said. Or did he mean that as long as the file uploaded to their site is not owned by someone who requests they take it down they will leave it up, no matter how offensive some people might find it? If he means the latter, and has deep enough pockets, he may well be able to keep the doors open and the servers online. He did leave himself an out by saying they would fight to keep things up "to the full extent of the law." That qualifier suggests that his meaning was closer to the latter than to the former.
Did it ever occur to you that most of those tickets were given to people who did not live in the town? I know several towns near me where several multiples (by a factor of 100) of the town's population drive through the town each day.
Well, I have never had a traffic court case (the only kind of court case I have ever been involved in) held outside of working hours. You are the first person to mention that your locality has them outside of working hours. If I have to take time off of work to go to the hearing, it is going to cost me more than the ticket for every ticket I have ever had in my life. Even if it is not held during working hours, my time is worth something to me.
Yes, gravity is primarily what gives galaxies their shape. However, the gravitational effects of the matter which we can observe does not yield the structure that we observe and no other force seems to fill the bill. This suggests that there are objects out there which exert gravitational force but do not interact with any of the other forces we currently observe in the universe (in particular, electro-magnetic force since that is the only one, besides gravity, that acts over a range long enough to be reliably observed at the distances we are talking about).
Your summary of the situation situation is close. However, in the U.S. when you get a ticket you have two choices. You can plead guilty and pay the fine. Or, you can plead "not guilty" and pay the fine plus and administrative cost. If you do the latter, chances are that when you show up for the court date you will be offered a reduced fine. The biggest thing that gets you is that most traffic violations come with "points" on your license. Accumulate enough points and you lose your license for a period of time. If you challenge the ticket, they will usually offer you a deal which gets rid of those points (unless you were driving outrageously). In most cases if you do not accept the "plea bargain" they offer you, they will schedule another hearing on another date.
I'm glad that you can afford to take those three days, but many people cannot. Have you ever considered that you are paying the costs for the judicial system as well as your own costs? So, not only do I get to pay the cost of losing three days of work, but I get to pay the cost of the other people who have to be in the courtroom as well (or at least some share of that cost). That sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
There are many people who are not aware that communists are historically greater mass-murderers than fascists. Many people associate fascists with evil and communists with good intentions (when in fact, communists have historically been at least as evil as fascists).
It would still cost any individual more to fight it than to pay it. The Prisoner's Dilemma does not apply, because even if everybody fought every ticket, it would still cost each individual more to fight the ticket than to challenge it. The only difference would be that it would also cost the municipality more than it gained from the tickets.
How long was the light green before you could see it? Or perhaps you were unaware that there are many places where it is not possible to see the light for more than 4 or 5 seconds before passing through it? There are lights which I pass through on a regular basis which cannot be seen for more than 2 or 3 seconds before passing through them I always approach these lights with caution, but I never know how long they have been green. Generally, if the light is green when I first see it, it will be green when I pass through it. If it is yellow, I prepare to stop (usually I will stop, but there are special cases). If it is red when I first see it, I almost always stop (although occasionally it will turn green before I come to a stop).
Which means that you have to take a day off of work to go to court for the initial hearing where you plead not guilty to the infraction. Then you have to take another day off to go back to court the day when they actually hear your case. Finally (if you are lucky and it is not dragged on longer) you have to return a third time when the experts present their findings to the court. You have now taken three days off of work and spent them in court. What are the odds that it would have cost you (a lot) less to just pay the fine? I don't know about you, but I make more than $105 in a day of work and challenging one of these tickets would cost, at least, three days of work. In addition, there is the added inconvenience of travelling to the courthouse where the hearings are held.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there some reason you think people can't handle criticizing/dismantling both?
Perhaps the fact that I have seen very little attention paid to the epidemic of sexual abuse in public schools, while there are press articles about the significantly fewer number of priest sex scandals. As an example, I am only aware of one news source which discussed the involvement of Graham Spanier in the cover up of child sex abuse accusations that occurred before the Jerry Sandusky case came up.
I have no idea. Do you listen to what Catholic leaders say? Did you before you knew about the sex scandals?
Of course, I would also argue that you are wrong about public school administrators. Most of them do set themselves up as moral authorities. They are frequently heard talking about how important it is to be "tolerant" (as they define tolerance). Most public school administrators tell children how they should behave.
Right, let's just continue to ignore the problem with pedophilia in the schools (where most of us have a say and can actually do something) and continue to yell and holler about pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church (where, not only do few of us have any say, but only a few more are actually connected in any way). Yeah. that's the ticket. If I make fun of the Roman Catholic Church for its failures on this issue I don't have to spend any time thinking that maybe I should do something about it where I can.
They didn't they got two colossal teacher's unions to devote efforts to moving them between schools so they could continue to molest children. If you examine the incidence of child sexual abuse between the Catholic Church in the United States and the public schools in the United States at the time the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church was at its highest the incidents were higher on a per child basis in the public schools involving teachers than in the Catholic Church.
Um, I thought we were talking about the Catholic Church, not public school teachers.
I know that it is true that those who make use of spectrum are considered to merely license the use of it from the government. If the FCC can under current law take back the license at any time without having a reason, than they can take back the license for what you called an "unconstitutional" reason. How would you prove that they had a reason, since you said that they did not need one? Let alone prove that the reason is unconstitutional?
The FCC does not require any justification for taking back spectrum as the licensees are not to claim ownership over it.
I am pretty sure that the courts would disagree with that, at least I hope so. Because if the FCC does not requite any justification for taking back spectrum that means that they could shut down a carrier because it failed to sufficiently support the political agenda of those running the FCC.
According to Thomas Jefferson that is not the case, "...stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent." That is, agreements such as the KORUS free trade agreement may be dropped by either party whenever they become inconvenient, but an actual ratified treaty may only be changed by mutual agreement between the two countries.
The repeat was not for you. I figured that you would understand what I had posted in the context of what you had posted. However, I have frequently had people other than the poster I replied to take issue with something I have posted because they have ignored the context created by the post I replied to. I attempted to preempt such things by restating my point in a way less reliant on the context of your post.
Apparently you missed the point that the judge is merely telling them that if he changes his plea to "Not guilty by reason of insanity" (from "Not Guilty" which is the default plea, since he did not enter a plea) he may need to submit to these drugs in order to support the insanity claim. The courts have consistently ruled that when a defendant claims that they should not be held accountable for crimes they have committed because they were insane at the time (and may still be insane) the burden of proof of insanity is on the defendant (the defendant is essentially admitting they committed the crime, but claiming they should not be held responsible because they were not in control of their faculties at the time).
I will repeat, in this case the "truth serum" will not be administered, if it is administered, to establish whether or not he committed the crime. It will be administered to determine if he is truly insane (or was truly insane) or if he is attempting to fake the symptoms of insanity.
What law gives the FCC or the FTC (or any other administrative agency) the authority to issue such a rule? (I'm not saying they do not have the authority, but your assertion that they do does not make it so).
It is not clear to me from the article if the treaty specifies the list of exceptions to "circumvention prohibition" as the only exceptions allowable (which happen to be the same as the list in the DMCA) or if it merely specifies the list given in the DMCA (although my reading of the article causes me to believe it is the former). If by some chance the treaty is written in the latter manner, then it is simply a matter of Congress amending the DMCA.
Actually, under U.S. law, the KORUS free trade agreement is not actually a treaty. It is instead a "congressional-executive agreement". That is, rather than being signed by the President and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate it was passed by simple majorities of both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Which means that under U.S. law it is no more binding than any other law. Congress may pass a law changing it at any time (as far as U.S. law is concerned).
I will restate this. The KORUS free trade agreement is not a ratified treaty, which would be negotiated by the President and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. It is no more "the law of the land" than any other law passed by Congress and, under U.S. law, may be amended by Congress at any time (subject to the same provisions as any other law). If Congress passes a law modifying the agreement (which is what this is, it is not actually a treaty), that modification supersedes the previous law (agreement). If South Korea was unaware of this, they should pay closer attention to U.S. law before signing an agreement with the U.S.
Because after all, atheists never supported any crackpot "science" either that is why the atheistic Soviet Union suppressed all opposition to Trofim Lysenko.
I agree that it reads like he would fight every attempt to take anything down from the site, but it could mean a much more pragmatic approach. It could even mean that they would take an approach that would make them only barely distinguishable from the sites he was criticizing as too PC. My hope that his meaning is a somewhat combative, pragmatic approach: if they know the law is against them hosting the file, they will take it down; if they believe that the law allows them to host the file, they will fight to the bitter end, stuff that is in the grey area they will fight until the courts make it clear (taking one of two attitudes "we think this should be legal, but the law is not clear," and "we think the law is unclear here and the courts need to clarify the meaning of the law, we will abide by the court's decision.")
The question is whether he meant exactly what he said, or if he failed to think it all the way through. Did he mean that any 3D printing file that anyone uploads to their site, even if the copyright on the file belongs to someone else would remain on their site until a court orders them to take it down? Which is the literal interpretation of the words he said. Or did he mean that as long as the file uploaded to their site is not owned by someone who requests they take it down they will leave it up, no matter how offensive some people might find it? If he means the latter, and has deep enough pockets, he may well be able to keep the doors open and the servers online. He did leave himself an out by saying they would fight to keep things up "to the full extent of the law." That qualifier suggests that his meaning was closer to the latter than to the former.
Did it ever occur to you that most of those tickets were given to people who did not live in the town? I know several towns near me where several multiples (by a factor of 100) of the town's population drive through the town each day.
Well, I have never had a traffic court case (the only kind of court case I have ever been involved in) held outside of working hours. You are the first person to mention that your locality has them outside of working hours. If I have to take time off of work to go to the hearing, it is going to cost me more than the ticket for every ticket I have ever had in my life. Even if it is not held during working hours, my time is worth something to me.
Yes, gravity is primarily what gives galaxies their shape. However, the gravitational effects of the matter which we can observe does not yield the structure that we observe and no other force seems to fill the bill. This suggests that there are objects out there which exert gravitational force but do not interact with any of the other forces we currently observe in the universe (in particular, electro-magnetic force since that is the only one, besides gravity, that acts over a range long enough to be reliably observed at the distances we are talking about).
Perhaps, but I have never been ticketed often enough by any municipality for me to ever see any savings from following your plan.
Your summary of the situation situation is close. However, in the U.S. when you get a ticket you have two choices. You can plead guilty and pay the fine. Or, you can plead "not guilty" and pay the fine plus and administrative cost. If you do the latter, chances are that when you show up for the court date you will be offered a reduced fine. The biggest thing that gets you is that most traffic violations come with "points" on your license. Accumulate enough points and you lose your license for a period of time. If you challenge the ticket, they will usually offer you a deal which gets rid of those points (unless you were driving outrageously). In most cases if you do not accept the "plea bargain" they offer you, they will schedule another hearing on another date.
I'm glad that you can afford to take those three days, but many people cannot. Have you ever considered that you are paying the costs for the judicial system as well as your own costs? So, not only do I get to pay the cost of losing three days of work, but I get to pay the cost of the other people who have to be in the courtroom as well (or at least some share of that cost). That sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
There are many people who are not aware that communists are historically greater mass-murderers than fascists. Many people associate fascists with evil and communists with good intentions (when in fact, communists have historically been at least as evil as fascists).
It would still cost any individual more to fight it than to pay it. The Prisoner's Dilemma does not apply, because even if everybody fought every ticket, it would still cost each individual more to fight the ticket than to challenge it. The only difference would be that it would also cost the municipality more than it gained from the tickets.
How long was the light green before you could see it? Or perhaps you were unaware that there are many places where it is not possible to see the light for more than 4 or 5 seconds before passing through it? There are lights which I pass through on a regular basis which cannot be seen for more than 2 or 3 seconds before passing through them I always approach these lights with caution, but I never know how long they have been green. Generally, if the light is green when I first see it, it will be green when I pass through it. If it is yellow, I prepare to stop (usually I will stop, but there are special cases). If it is red when I first see it, I almost always stop (although occasionally it will turn green before I come to a stop).
Which means that you have to take a day off of work to go to court for the initial hearing where you plead not guilty to the infraction. Then you have to take another day off to go back to court the day when they actually hear your case. Finally (if you are lucky and it is not dragged on longer) you have to return a third time when the experts present their findings to the court. You have now taken three days off of work and spent them in court. What are the odds that it would have cost you (a lot) less to just pay the fine? I don't know about you, but I make more than $105 in a day of work and challenging one of these tickets would cost, at least, three days of work. In addition, there is the added inconvenience of travelling to the courthouse where the hearings are held.