Was it mailed? Or was it a download from a homepage? A very important difference because it affects the question whether they were shipping or not. If they mailed it, then yes, they were actively acting and thus delivering the content. If they offered only a download, then no, they put it up for pickup in their virtual warehouse and the Tampa resident went there and picked it up (all across the state, but it was still his action, not the store's).
That's what the defense argued. Unfortunately, they lost.
Most porn sites make you "confirm" that you are over the age of consent and legally allowed to access the content they serve. While they don't check it still means they have a reason to believe that the person accessing the site was allowed to. This should be the resident's responsibility, not the site's.
That's fine, and it's good that a site does that, but that site would still be liable under this court decision. The ruling is that a website is liable if they serve content deemed illegal by the local municipality; it shifts the burdon from the end user to the website operators, which is what I object to the most.
You poor chaps over the pond really do seem to have the most bizarre legal decisions made for you, sometimes.
Unfortunately, the US hardly has a monopoly on that sort of thing. Which country do you hail from? I'm sure we could both find some utterly ridiculous yet important laws from your country as well to make fun of!:-)
Every time I hear of a new speech-impeding British or French or Australian law (actually lately it's been mostly Australian), I end up thinking "thank heavens free speech provisions are still held to be more important here." Then I hear of this court decision and I think "we're all fucked." There are no good countries anymore. Nowhere where free speech is actually held sacred -- as if that were ever REALLY the case.
That "black man" as you put it, was Mos Def (the actor/rapper). Granted being the nerd website this is, you may not be into rap/hiphop/whatever (I'm certainly not), you should however recall that he was in Hitchhiker's Guide. I will have to be confiscating your nerd card now.
Bah, true nerds realized ahead of time that the movie would be an abomination and steered clear.
Or actually, loudly proclaiming they were steering clear, then sneaking in.
Just because you can't doesn't mean others wouldn't. Please don't speak for everyone else's dying wishes, nor their medical wishes.
No one is saying those people should never be able to make that decision, we're saying it's a crazy choice. Absolutely crazy. But personally I think it's made more of ignorance -- people having a fantasy of how they'll be able to live, while the reality will be far more crushing and depressing for everyone.
I wonder though -- if the person can't pay for it, how much of that burden should the rest of us have to shoulder? Maybe a bit off topic, but I think it's a legitimate question.
Save them from what? I'm pretty sure living out the rest of your life unable to move, communicating only through blinks would be worse than the alternative.
Being dehydrated to death.
If your ability to feel is also destroyed, doesn't much matter, does it?
If you're going to kill someone, at least have the balls to put a bullet in their head.
Ah but you see, there's a difference between "killing someone" with with a bullet and simply refusing to take action, letting the body shut down without artificial interference. The person ends up just as dead, but the legal (and occasionally moral) implications are different.
I was just thinking about this the other day. If I'm still mentally capable but unable to communicate or move, I think I still want to live.
I like to think and contemplate, which if I was still capable of doing so, I'd like to continue that rather than die. It'd be great if I could 'think' and then tell people, but I'd rather think and not tell people that to just be gone.
Interesting! Finally I can have a discussion with someone who believes in "life of any kind is better than death." Bout time one of you chaps spoke up here.:-)
Now the question is... why? Why would you actually want that for yourself? Would a living hell really be better than death?
You're really look at it from the perspective of people surrounding the person on life support.
Because I really, honestly feel that is the perspective that most people who argued, say, on behalf of Terri Schaivo, were really coming from. That most of these "please please don't pull the plug" pleas stem from an inability of people to let go rather than looking at what would be best for the person involved. It's more about them and their emotions than it is about the patient.
Where the fuck did this ridiculous sense of entitlement come from? What the hell is wrong with people now days? You don't exactly get raises when you screw up, ESPECIALLY when you end up costing millions to the company. The only time you get pay increases in this situation is when you're a US CEO of a massive company and cost millions of people pain and suffering, THEN you get a bonus.
Maybe people looked at the banking industry and decided that was a nice model to use. It wasn't just CEOs that got retention bonuses.
Andrew Carnegie wasn't too bad as far as they went, but most other large tycoons of that age were absolutely ruthless. They weren't people you'd look to for morals.
And, with a return to poverty he will decry contraception "a failure anyway" so "why bother". This would be espescially true if the contraceptive method encouraged is condom use (one of the cheapest and least reliable).
So, to be effective, insurance must be available against contraceptive failure. But, short of sterilization, how would you guarantee it would be used all the time?
See, that's why I feel that abortion should be bundled with it. Takes care of any of the slipups. But of course... incredibly controversial.
Besides, with more old people, there will be more old-people medicine for robots to use as fuel. The robots can support the old people, because they're made of metal, and robots are strong.
I really don't understand this. I don't even understand why the scientists make those robots. They're everywhere.:-(
Most temporary (barrier or hormonal) methods of contraception carry 1% failure rates when used correctly (that is, 1% of all women will become pregnant in each year of relying on them). Method failure rates are much higher (as much as 33% cited for condom method failure). Sterilization spontaneously reverses about 0.3% of the time in women and 0.6% of the time in men.
That's fine, but I wouldn't say we need a 100% effective solution. When we're looking at a serious overpopulation/explosively-growing-population problem, then a 1% failure rate is better than.. oh... 50% pregnancy success (a number I'm totally pulling out of my ass) when no contraception is used.
But again, it's not a complete solution. I would favor (and mostly-religious reasons are used to shoot all of these down) as a comprehensive solution: 1) Abstinence education (abstinence education is fine... abstinence-only education is useless). 2) Contraceptives. 3) Abortion. (This one is the trickiest, especially in countries where women are considered subservient or inferior. No woman should be forced to get an abortion, but I feel it should be an option if she wishes it).
China has a long history of living under a protective hand, thousands of years. The US has a history built in freedoms in the last hundred so years and a resulting society devolving into anarchy and hedonism. Who's to say who's right?
The result being that life has been pretty shitty for most people throughout China's history.
The rest of your apologizing for China is pretty sick.
Avatar is a fairly simplistic (but very well animated) tale of the good guys and the bad guys. Even if the direction hadn't been so heavy handed, the good guys would have been obviously in the right and the bad guys obviously in the wrong. One side was on the other's planet, busy machine-gunning them for their resources. They didn't even have a sincere-to-them-but-monstrous-in-retrospect motive along the "saving the heathens' souls" lines.
It started out being more sympathetic than it ended up. Specifically, the idea at the start of the movie was "if we give them enough of [something they want], they'll agree to relocate peacefully, we mine the minerals, everyone is happy." The Avatar program was started to find out what [something they want] was. So.. it started out positive and it turned into warfare when the Avatars figured out there really was nothing they could give the Na'vi so they would agree to move. So then the statement became: "If we give them enough of [bombing their asses], they'll agree to relocate." The military even started out in an almost-humane method: use tear gas to get the natives to leave the area while it was cleared. Then, no tree = no home = no reason for the natives to stick around.
Well I'm not Setiguy, but if there's no evidence relieve funds were diverted to the campaign, that sounds like a strong slander case. There's no need for any new laws, this sort of thing is taken care of in the legal system all the time.
Please do not use the word 'accurate' when describing the WND article. It'd be a pretty damning essay if it were actually true, but carefully editing paragraphs to remove context to change the meaning to be the opposite of the original reflects pretty low journalistic standards. No better than Michael Moore.
I don't want anyone in my government who can readily imagine the government banning conspiracy theorizing or placing a tax on such theorizing.
So you want a government only made up of complete fucking morons? I mean, I can see the appeal to that, truly I do, but I don't think that works out all that well in reality.
"if enough people believe even relatively mild conspiracy theories about flu vaccines, then they'll refuse to get vaccinated and public health will suffer."
Yes. This is of course according to plan. Only the people who believe in conspiracies will suffer and die. Our plan to breed a more rational human being will come to fruition. AH HAHAHAHA.
Slashdot Mirror
Was it mailed? Or was it a download from a homepage? A very important difference because it affects the question whether they were shipping or not. If they mailed it, then yes, they were actively acting and thus delivering the content. If they offered only a download, then no, they put it up for pickup in their virtual warehouse and the Tampa resident went there and picked it up (all across the state, but it was still his action, not the store's).
That's what the defense argued. Unfortunately, they lost.
Most porn sites make you "confirm" that you are over the age of consent and legally allowed to access the content they serve. While they don't check it still means they have a reason to believe that the person accessing the site was allowed to. This should be the resident's responsibility, not the site's.
That's fine, and it's good that a site does that, but that site would still be liable under this court decision. The ruling is that a website is liable if they serve content deemed illegal by the local municipality; it shifts the burdon from the end user to the website operators, which is what I object to the most.
It's part of operating a business: comply with the laws of the area where you're doing business.
But what if you're not actually doing business? What if it's a free website that doesn't even require registration?
You poor chaps over the pond really do seem to have the most bizarre legal decisions made for you, sometimes.
Unfortunately, the US hardly has a monopoly on that sort of thing. Which country do you hail from? I'm sure we could both find some utterly ridiculous yet important laws from your country as well to make fun of! :-)
Every time I hear of a new speech-impeding British or French or Australian law (actually lately it's been mostly Australian), I end up thinking "thank heavens free speech provisions are still held to be more important here." Then I hear of this court decision and I think "we're all fucked." There are no good countries anymore. Nowhere where free speech is actually held sacred -- as if that were ever REALLY the case.
UP! is a cartoon, but if the old man ripped the eyeballs at of the kid and skull fucked him, it would be child porn.
It would be obscene, but it would hardly be child porn.
I'm sure right now George Lucas's mind is blown.
Tomorrow, he'll be trying to figure out what he can do to become a Lord.
That "black man" as you put it, was Mos Def (the actor/rapper). Granted being the nerd website this is, you may not be into rap/hiphop/whatever (I'm certainly not), you should however recall that he was in Hitchhiker's Guide. I will have to be confiscating your nerd card now.
Bah, true nerds realized ahead of time that the movie would be an abomination and steered clear.
Or actually, loudly proclaiming they were steering clear, then sneaking in.
Ok, you may have a point.
Just because you can't doesn't mean others wouldn't. Please don't speak for everyone else's dying wishes, nor their medical wishes.
No one is saying those people should never be able to make that decision, we're saying it's a crazy choice. Absolutely crazy. But personally I think it's made more of ignorance -- people having a fantasy of how they'll be able to live, while the reality will be far more crushing and depressing for everyone.
I wonder though -- if the person can't pay for it, how much of that burden should the rest of us have to shoulder? Maybe a bit off topic, but I think it's a legitimate question.
Save them from what? I'm pretty sure living out the rest of your life unable to move, communicating only through blinks would be worse than the alternative.
Being dehydrated to death.
If your ability to feel is also destroyed, doesn't much matter, does it?
If you're going to kill someone, at least have the balls to put a bullet in their head.
Ah but you see, there's a difference between "killing someone" with with a bullet and simply refusing to take action, letting the body shut down without artificial interference. The person ends up just as dead, but the legal (and occasionally moral) implications are different.
Save them from the end, death.
I was just thinking about this the other day. If I'm still mentally capable but unable to communicate or move, I think I still want to live.
I like to think and contemplate, which if I was still capable of doing so, I'd like to continue that rather than die. It'd be great if I could 'think' and then tell people, but I'd rather think and not tell people that to just be gone.
Interesting! Finally I can have a discussion with someone who believes in "life of any kind is better than death." Bout time one of you chaps spoke up here. :-)
Now the question is... why? Why would you actually want that for yourself? Would a living hell really be better than death?
You're really look at it from the perspective of people surrounding the person on life support.
Because I really, honestly feel that is the perspective that most people who argued, say, on behalf of Terri Schaivo, were really coming from. That most of these "please please don't pull the plug" pleas stem from an inability of people to let go rather than looking at what would be best for the person involved. It's more about them and their emotions than it is about the patient.
Where the fuck did this ridiculous sense of entitlement come from? What the hell is wrong with people now days? You don't exactly get raises when you screw up, ESPECIALLY when you end up costing millions to the company. The only time you get pay increases in this situation is when you're a US CEO of a massive company and cost millions of people pain and suffering, THEN you get a bonus.
Maybe people looked at the banking industry and decided that was a nice model to use. It wasn't just CEOs that got retention bonuses.
You really don't have any sort of valid point. Your trolls are denigrating. Just stop.
Andrew Carnegie wasn't too bad as far as they went, but most other large tycoons of that age were absolutely ruthless. They weren't people you'd look to for morals.
As someone who lives in California, I would point to our state legislature as an excellent, prime example of why term limits are a terrible idea.
And, with a return to poverty he will decry contraception "a failure anyway" so "why bother". This would be espescially true if the contraceptive method encouraged is condom use (one of the cheapest and least reliable).
So, to be effective, insurance must be available against contraceptive failure. But, short of sterilization, how would you guarantee it would be used all the time?
See, that's why I feel that abortion should be bundled with it. Takes care of any of the slipups. But of course... incredibly controversial.
Someone modded this -1 Flamebait, but maybe it should be -1 Ugly Truth.
Different cultures have different views on the size of the family, and the USA is hardly the unified melting pot I was taught about when I was young.
Besides, with more old people, there will be more old-people medicine for robots to use as fuel. The robots can support the old people, because they're made of metal, and robots are strong.
I really don't understand this. I don't even understand why the scientists make those robots. They're everywhere. :-(
Most temporary (barrier or hormonal) methods of contraception carry 1% failure rates when used correctly (that is, 1% of all women will become pregnant in each year of relying on them). Method failure rates are much higher (as much as 33% cited for condom method failure). Sterilization spontaneously reverses about 0.3% of the time in women and 0.6% of the time in men.
That's fine, but I wouldn't say we need a 100% effective solution. When we're looking at a serious overpopulation/explosively-growing-population problem, then a 1% failure rate is better than.. oh... 50% pregnancy success (a number I'm totally pulling out of my ass) when no contraception is used.
But again, it's not a complete solution. I would favor (and mostly-religious reasons are used to shoot all of these down) as a comprehensive solution:
1) Abstinence education (abstinence education is fine... abstinence-only education is useless).
2) Contraceptives.
3) Abortion. (This one is the trickiest, especially in countries where women are considered subservient or inferior. No woman should be forced to get an abortion, but I feel it should be an option if she wishes it).
China has a long history of living under a protective hand, thousands of years. The US has a history built in freedoms in the last hundred so years and a resulting society devolving into anarchy and hedonism. Who's to say who's right?
The result being that life has been pretty shitty for most people throughout China's history.
The rest of your apologizing for China is pretty sick.
Avatar is a fairly simplistic (but very well animated) tale of the good guys and the bad guys. Even if the direction hadn't been so heavy handed, the good guys would have been obviously in the right and the bad guys obviously in the wrong. One side was on the other's planet, busy machine-gunning them for their resources. They didn't even have a sincere-to-them-but-monstrous-in-retrospect motive along the "saving the heathens' souls" lines.
It started out being more sympathetic than it ended up. Specifically, the idea at the start of the movie was "if we give them enough of [something they want], they'll agree to relocate peacefully, we mine the minerals, everyone is happy." The Avatar program was started to find out what [something they want] was. So.. it started out positive and it turned into warfare when the Avatars figured out there really was nothing they could give the Na'vi so they would agree to move. So then the statement became: "If we give them enough of [bombing their asses], they'll agree to relocate." The military even started out in an almost-humane method: use tear gas to get the natives to leave the area while it was cleared. Then, no tree = no home = no reason for the natives to stick around.
P.S. Godwin' law was inevitable on this one.
I don't think so. Nothing so far has been Godwin-invoking.
Godwin's Law doesn't apply to any mention of Nazism, it only applies when one person calls another a Nazi or Hitler.
The grandparent simply said "here were some very restrictive people who liked 'free speech' when it suited them."
No need to invoke Godwin yet; hopefully it won't happen!
Well I'm not Setiguy, but if there's no evidence relieve funds were diverted to the campaign, that sounds like a strong slander case. There's no need for any new laws, this sort of thing is taken care of in the legal system all the time.
Please do not use the word 'accurate' when describing the WND article. It'd be a pretty damning essay if it were actually true, but carefully editing paragraphs to remove context to change the meaning to be the opposite of the original reflects pretty low journalistic standards. No better than Michael Moore.
I don't want anyone in my government who can readily imagine the government banning conspiracy theorizing or placing a tax on such theorizing.
So you want a government only made up of complete fucking morons? I mean, I can see the appeal to that, truly I do, but I don't think that works out all that well in reality.
"if enough people believe even relatively mild conspiracy theories about flu vaccines, then they'll refuse to get vaccinated and public health will suffer."
Yes. This is of course according to plan. Only the people who believe in conspiracies will suffer and die. Our plan to breed a more rational human being will come to fruition. AH HAHAHAHA.
Oh god, if only that was the way it worked.