Only given unethical scumbag advertisers (which makes any sort of honor system non-viable). Very few people want to be tracked by strangers. I would guess there are more people who want to be whipped until they bleed.
If it has been properly conditioned before being put away and it is stored in proper conditions, it'll be fine as long as it doesn't have a battery to fail.
Since we are talking about the actual law, not some ideal, you're stuck with the reasonable man.
I imagine you're speaking of the Schenck case. That case did NOT establish that yelling Fire (falsely) in a movie theater was to be considered incitement to riot. That case used a great deal of sophistry to extend the already well accepted principle to war protesters. It was that (impermissible) extension that made it an abridgment of free speech. Not long after, the judge in that case came to believe he had made an error. Eventually the holding was reversed.
You may not be aware, but a reasonable man is a legal standard.
As for the rest, are you claiming if someone yells fire, you will just sit there until you notice that it's getting a bit stuffy and you smell rump roast?
Sophistry and corruption of the courts is what lead to war protesters being arrested.
All true. It well explains how a citizen can actually be speaking for a majority of the people while complaining about a law passed in the legislature.
If you said something completely innocuous ("Hello!")
That's because a reasonable man wouldn't expect "Hello!" to cause a panic. Note that if I make a general announcement in the theater that in 5 seconds I will yell "FIRE!", and nobody should worry, All would be well, because in that situation, I wouldn't expect to cause a panic even though I yelled "FIRE!" in a theater.
If someone decides to panic and trample over others, *that's on them*.
NO. It will be on whoever yelled fire because a reasonable person may believe the theater is on fire if someone is shouting fire.
Technically, the prohibition on yelling fire in a movie theater and death threats is not due to tyhe speech but the effect of causing (respectively) a panic likely to hurt or kill people or placing someone in fear for their well being.
But not the 'free speech zones' placed well away from anyone who might listen.
It won't help. The nominal range is 10 inches from the watch, meaning it WILL fire while the cop and perp struggle for the weapon. Once the perp gets control, instead of trying to back away and then run, he will certainly fire point blank.
It won't help any other situation either. Look at the picture. There's a place for the watch that you will definitely not want to wear every day right there in the gun case. The kid that gets into the case will have the watch. The suicide will have the watch. The crook who steals the gun will have the watch.
If they could come up with a gun that magically only fires when it's justified and is never wrong, I would be all for it, but this isn't it.
Actually, the state of New Jersey already has a law on the books that once such a technology becomes generally available, it will become mandatory. So yes, in fact, someone IS forcing residents to buy that gun or no gun at all.
How many people like SOPA and CISPA? Why if the representatives only support laws that have popular support, do they sometimes sneak things in as a rider at the last minute? If it's so popular, surely it should be able to breeze right through as a standalone bill.
The 55MPH speed limit was so 'popular' it resulted in several very successful movies that were primarily about people violating the speed limit and evading law enforcement (and a bunch of smashed up cop cars).
But since there exist people known to have been wrongly executed and a few more exonerated after their last appeal was done (but fortunately before their execution), the original point stands.
Part of their problem (and this should be a hint to them) is that few doctors will have anything to do with it. Even the few who will can't actually cause the death or they will lose their AMA membership.
The prosecutor should be required to "push the button" personally. If they really believe the person must die, they should be willing to make it so.
Usually, there's more than one 'button'. The second one should be pressed by the governor. The third by a legislator who voted to implement or keep the death penalty, selected at random.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it's up to the advertisers to come up with a way to personalize ads without being able to track the users. It can be done.
Only given unethical scumbag advertisers (which makes any sort of honor system non-viable). Very few people want to be tracked by strangers. I would guess there are more people who want to be whipped until they bleed.
Defaults should represent a best guess as to what most people will want. For once, for whatever reason, I'd say MS got it right.
If the ad agencies don't believe that to be the will of the users, they are deluding themselves. Nobody likes to be stalked.
If it has been properly conditioned before being put away and it is stored in proper conditions, it'll be fine as long as it doesn't have a battery to fail.
If ypu'll look back, I certainly did.
Perhaps your browser is broken, try refreshing.
Since we are talking about the actual law, not some ideal, you're stuck with the reasonable man.
I imagine you're speaking of the Schenck case. That case did NOT establish that yelling Fire (falsely) in a movie theater was to be considered incitement to riot. That case used a great deal of sophistry to extend the already well accepted principle to war protesters. It was that (impermissible) extension that made it an abridgment of free speech. Not long after, the judge in that case came to believe he had made an error. Eventually the holding was reversed.
1) "reasonable" is 100% subjective.
You may not be aware, but a reasonable man is a legal standard.
As for the rest, are you claiming if someone yells fire, you will just sit there until you notice that it's getting a bit stuffy and you smell rump roast?
Sophistry and corruption of the courts is what lead to war protesters being arrested.
All true. It well explains how a citizen can actually be speaking for a majority of the people while complaining about a law passed in the legislature.
If you said something completely innocuous ("Hello!")
That's because a reasonable man wouldn't expect "Hello!" to cause a panic. Note that if I make a general announcement in the theater that in 5 seconds I will yell "FIRE!", and nobody should worry, All would be well, because in that situation, I wouldn't expect to cause a panic even though I yelled "FIRE!" in a theater.
If someone decides to panic and trample over others, *that's on them*.
NO. It will be on whoever yelled fire because a reasonable person may believe the theater is on fire if someone is shouting fire.
Well regulated in the language if that time meant well practiced. An accurate watch might also be called well regulated.
The militia as the word was defined at the time meant every able bodied man. We might reasonably interpret that today as every able bodied person.
Well regulated meant well practiced. In other words, able to hit what they aim at.
Technically, the prohibition on yelling fire in a movie theater and death threats is not due to tyhe speech but the effect of causing (respectively) a panic likely to hurt or kill people or placing someone in fear for their well being.
But not the 'free speech zones' placed well away from anyone who might listen.
It won't help. The nominal range is 10 inches from the watch, meaning it WILL fire while the cop and perp struggle for the weapon. Once the perp gets control, instead of trying to back away and then run, he will certainly fire point blank.
It won't help any other situation either. Look at the picture. There's a place for the watch that you will definitely not want to wear every day right there in the gun case. The kid that gets into the case will have the watch. The suicide will have the watch. The crook who steals the gun will have the watch.
If they could come up with a gun that magically only fires when it's justified and is never wrong, I would be all for it, but this isn't it.
Interestingly, NJ ALREADY has a law that the technology becomes mandatory within 3 years of general availability.
So as long as you shoot intruders on an almost daily basis, all will be well?
Try leaving the car in a garage for a few years and see how reliably it starts.
Actually, the state of New Jersey already has a law on the books that once such a technology becomes generally available, it will become mandatory. So yes, in fact, someone IS forcing residents to buy that gun or no gun at all.
How many people like SOPA and CISPA? Why if the representatives only support laws that have popular support, do they sometimes sneak things in as a rider at the last minute? If it's so popular, surely it should be able to breeze right through as a standalone bill.
The 55MPH speed limit was so 'popular' it resulted in several very successful movies that were primarily about people violating the speed limit and evading law enforcement (and a bunch of smashed up cop cars).
Here's a few.
Let me guess, you were that kid in elementary school that "knew karate"?
But since there exist people known to have been wrongly executed and a few more exonerated after their last appeal was done (but fortunately before their execution), the original point stands.
Because if you don't, that makes you just as bad as him. You know what we do to people as bad as him, don't you?
Which makes you a total sicko. I guess we'll need to schedule you for execution.
Part of their problem (and this should be a hint to them) is that few doctors will have anything to do with it. Even the few who will can't actually cause the death or they will lose their AMA membership.
The prosecutor should be required to "push the button" personally. If they really believe the person must die, they should be willing to make it so.
Usually, there's more than one 'button'. The second one should be pressed by the governor. The third by a legislator who voted to implement or keep the death penalty, selected at random.
Try it on a politician first. If it works OK, then it can be used on humans.