My thoughts exactly. And here's the thing: if I'm wrong, the kid should be able to prove it (or at least make a good go of trying).
Sure, the U.S. authorities might (claim to) be barred from discussing a specific case; but the kid can almost certainly produce the email (that being what Sent Mail is for). Of course, there would then be some back-and-forth about whether the email he produced was authentic, whether it was the email in question, etc. A real reporter might have asked to sit with him at his computer and look over his sent email folder. If he agreed to this (without being given enough warning to tamper with the message first), then he'd have some credibility.
Even if we just had his word as to the authenticity of the email, that might be enough to force an official response from the White House; if they show me an email, I'm inclined to believe it's real. And depending on what email service he uses, it might be possible (perhaps not easy) to get an authentication of what message was sent from them. (For example, since I use GMail, I'm willing to bet that Google could tell you whether I raelly sent a given email or not.)
The point being, if I'd just been told at college age that I were barred from a major country, I wouldn't just assume that it would never matter. I'd be making every effort to show that it was an over-reaction, if it were. This kid, on the other hand, can't come up with better than a "gosh, I don't think I said anything that bad"?
So if two services offer the same speeds, that's evidence of collusion; but if a service offers different speeds, that excludes it from consideration because it doesn't meet your arbitrary definition of "broadband". Interesting.
Well, I'm going to address all of your comments in the context of your claim that broadband is necessary for access to government services, in spite of the fact that such a claim is nothing but an oft-repeated lie.
I don't believe your claim of collusion between the phone company and the cable company. In the case we're discussing (restricting TV-over-IP), such collusion would directly contradict the phone company's interests. If you think collusion is occuring, raise the issue in court; that's why we have anti-trust laws. (That is of course if, as you claim, the two acting together would constitute a monopoly.)
Satellite counts. Name a government service that you cannot access with sat service because it's too slow.
3G counts. Name a government service that you cannot access with 3G because it's too slow.
I'm sorry to hear you're unaware of the independent options in your area; your lack of awareness does not a monopoly make.
I already challenged anyone who wanted to make this claim to back it up, but instead you've chosen to just parrot it blindly. Even if we pretend it were true, you can access your government services over the Internet without having broadband in your home. The fact that you can spend money on new options that make your life easier does not mean that a person who doesn't spend money on those options is a 'second class citizen'
I should probably clarify that the first two bullets were meant to read "you can probably choose to use your (local phone company | cable company) as your ISP"; this was made less clear when I added the notes about some areas having more than one of each. The point isn't whether you have choice of phone carrier - which is often a local monopoly unless you include VOIP or cell service - but rather than use of your phone carrier as your ISP is a choice you have.
Interesting. The religious killings you speak against are, of course, an expression of bigotry. Yet in your statement I find a bit of irony. Rarely do I hear someone speak of a classification of people as though it were a single individual, except that such speech is itself an expression of bigotry.
If I thought the ISP were truly misapplying its hate speech provision as an excuse to terminate access - for example, if this were a case where they retroactively defined hate speech to include saying "I hate my ISP" - then I'd agree. But actually, I'd say that burning of religious texts (or other "objectionable" materials) has long been associated as hate speech. You could argue that burning of a cross or hanging of a noose is, in and of itself, a peaceful but offensive act; or maybe you think at some point it crosses a line to being a threatening matter of hate speech.
I think really the point is, if you apply just what's in your ISP's contract (and not what you assume it to mean or how you think they'll enforce it), you have to know that they have a lot of subjective lattitude to decide if you're violating the TOS. In turn you are, of course, free to make your subjective determination about how troubling a given application of that policy is. What I'm saying is, to me this one isn't that big a deal.
Sure, it'd be nice to reduce it to black-and-white; but the only way to do that is to find an ISP with no subjective contract terms - i.e. to reduce it to a matter of law. So perhaps not many people are outright challenging the ISP's legal standing; and yet the magic words of the 1st Ammendment have been invoked by more than one. And, legal challenge or not, as I said I just can't see myself getting all that worked up over this particular application of the ISP's "hate speech" provision.
"I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES"
And if you were even remotely correct that there are NO CHOICES, I would agree with you.
You can probably choose your local cable company. Some areas even have more than one.
You can probably choose your local phone company. Some areas even have more than one.
You can likely choose from at least a handful of satelite providers. This may be restricted for you personally if you live in an apartment, but sad as you may find this the market is not driven by your individual circumstances.
I'm increasingly seeing people using 3G and 4G wireless service as an ISP.
You may be able to choose an independent ISP in your area
Much as I'm sure you hate to hear it, if nobody is offering a service you consider worth the money, you can choose not to do business with any of them.
Go on, explain to me why the last one isn't an option. Pretend broadband is necessary to survive in modern society (even though lots of people get by fine without it), or that it's a God-given right that somebody just has to provide you a service to your liking.
What you perceive as broadband being 'necessary', I perceive as the existing services being worth the money to you even though you protest otherwise.
"It's entirely possible that BOTH companies offering these services are simply going to dictate to you what you're allowed to do with their service"
"BOTH"? LOL. Ok, we'll pretend there are only two.
Right, the phone company (who hates competition in the ISP market from the cable company) is going to help the cable company compete by cooperating with a ban on IP-baed delivery of TV shows, thereby allowing the cable company to get by with such a ban. Very realistic concern.
I'm well aware of the limits of the competitive markets, but when it comes to whether those principles apply to ISP's, I'm not the one who hasn't thought the matter through.
"Some "infringement" is perfectly legal and ethical."
You almost had a point, and you had to go and ruin it with this gem.
Infringement is a legal term, so I'm not sure how you can claim that some infringement is legal. The law identifies some circumstances (like fair use) in which an act that would otherwise be infringement is not, by virtue of those circumstances, infringement. (See, e.g., U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 1, s107.) Such acts are perfectly legal, but then again they are not infringement.
Some infringement should be legal (because, as you note, copyright terms are out of control). You can argue that violating such laws is ethical, if your ethical code endorses civil disobedience. However, you need to remember that civil disobedience includes accepting the social and legal consequences of your actions, even though those consequences be improper and even though your goals largely involve abolishment of those consequences.
I'm not sure how an explicit contract provision can be called a "loophole". Sounds more like an RTFC situation to me.
My view is basically that I prefer an ISP to maintain a political neutrality[1] with respect to its subscriber's content (though really it can be a little more complicated than that); and given a clear, all-else-equal choice I would select one that does.
But, an ISP is typically a private entity[2]. Current court rulings hold that an ISP as a corporation has free speech and expression rights of its own; even to the extent that this is rubbish, it is the owner of its network. I do not subscribe to the idea that private property can be used against its owner's will for the furtherance of someone else's right to expression.
So the contract, including every enforcable provision - not just the ones you ilke as you dismiss the others as "loopholes" - is the only legal matter in play. I just can't muster a great deal of outrage at a company that chooses not to propagate this message, even if I do disagree with them on principle. Just as I disagree with the church's message but support their right to express it, I disagree with the ISP's decision but support their right to say "go express it somewhere else".
No ISP is going to concede that they owe you anything beyond the contract; so all those posting about how you won't do business with these guys now that they've shown how evil they are - good luck finding an ISP without a hate speech provision in their TOS.
----- [1] By "political neutrality" I mean that I prefer they not distinguish between users' content based on the ideas expressed. This should not be confused with network neutrality in the sense that term is currently used. There is one similarity, though: In both cases I think the government's role is limited to imposing labeling laws at most.
[2] The importance of this distinction is hard to overstate IMO. It's the difference between "at first they came for the religiously bigotted hate mongers (by suppressing their speech), but I said nothing because I am not a religiously biggoted hate monger", vs. "at first they came for the ISP's (by compelling them to donate their property's use to the upholding of others' rights), but I said nothing because I am not an ISP".
I doubt many cable companies, when faced with a loss of TV subscribers, will turn around and alienate their ISP subscribers with limitations on their service. I'm betting they'd like to have a hand in the delivery of TV content, even if it is only as the ISP over which someone else's digital service is delivered.
As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.
And no, I don't expect the ever-shrinking population that only has one ISP option (or doesn't know how to find the other options) to be driving industry practices WRT network management.
Well, someone still has to buy the textbook content (and other software) to put on the iPad. I'm not sure the expected lifespan for an iPad, but I'd argue that textbooks are more durable in the face of handling by a highschool (or younger) student who doesn't own it. Also consider that Apple designs its products to be used for a certain duration and then discarded (so you'll buy the new one).
The concept may have merit if the software adds value above and beyond what you get from a textbook. I cannot see it being cheaper than textbooks unless/until it can replace multiple textbooks for a given grade.
"I'm quite certain that if he's not found guilty he could actually sue HP for libel on this one, citing the complaint."
First, I suppose it's a bit of a technicallity, but this is a civil filing. He is not accused of a crime. There is no "guilty" or "not guilty".
Second, defamation suits are notoriously hard to win in the U.S. Filing a civil complaint that is later dismissed is not, in and of itself, at all likely to constitute libel. I would assume the courts would be very hesitant to view allegations in a civil suit as defamation (though if they did, I'd have a couple real winners to pursue myself).
But in any event, what claims of fact do you believe are defamatory and false in this particular filing? I didn't notice any.
'So that's how the kids are spinning it these days?'
"These days"? Actually, those of us who were paying attention have been saying this since mid-2009. As soon as we started hearing extremeist anti-reform rhetoric, we predicted that it would hijack the debate and keep serious conservative objections from being raised and incorporated into the final measure. And it did.
But hey, sure, if it makes you happy, go on thinking something that was foreseen and predicted - and then came to pass - is just modern revisionist spin.
'You apparently missed it, but a Democrat controlled Congress and presidency was the sole "key factor".'
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
'Also, you exaggerate the influence of the group in 2009. My take is that they were just another bit of noise to the Republican leadership until they helped take some special elections (a key win was in early 2010 with a Republican as senator in Massachusetts).'
So that's how the kids are spinning it these days? The swing against the party in power at midterm has been, in historical context, unremarkable. They haven't "helped" the Republican party nearly as much as they'd have anyone believe.
'I thumbed through a bunch of your previous posts'
Wow, you must have a lot of time on your hands.
'...to attempt to get some idea of where you were coming from. Still no clue.'
I agree; you have no clue.
Well, sorry I don't fit neatly under one of your pre-conceived labels. Learn how to think for yourself and you'll have an easier time understanding those of us who already do.
'Merely being bad news to nebulous groups doesn't mean anything to me'
Well, damn, my entire post was predicated on the assumption that it would mean something to you. I'm all torn up over this.
And really? "Nebulous groups"? You don't know what "both sides of the aisle" means? Ok, fine, I'll help you out:
They are a deliberate nuisance to those with liberal views, and an unintentional menace to those with conservative views.
A lot of people seem to think so, but to that I say: hogwash.
If you see a session for someone who is not to be tracked, you don't have to know that the session was initiated by Arthur Dent, and Arthur Dent has asked to not be tracked. All you have to know is "this session is not to be tracked". Why on Earth would you need to know who you aren't tracking? To make sure they're authorized to not be tracked? The whole point is that the option should be available to everyone.
How about this example for web sites: add a "don't track me, bro" bit to the HTTP headers.
So you also deny the existance of people who claim to know there's no God? Well, on that one you are provably wrong.
Go on claiming to hold the One True Meaning of the label all you want, but I'm going to continue characterizing atheists' beliefs in terms of how self-described atheists characterize their own beliefs in actual conversation.
The group whose dominating and inept control of the conservative voice in 2009 was a key factor in passing the sweeping healthcare reform bill isn't news?
No, they're news. It's just that no matter which side of the aisle you're on, they're bad news.
And you go right ahead and blame everyone but yourself for you spreading misinforamtion, while painting yourself as the victim by calling those who point out your errors "smug".
Right, for the government to expect you to keep a number secure, knowing that if that number were exposed then someone could steal your identity, and to then rely on that number to identify and authenticate someone wishing to do business with them; that would be unthinkable.
I find it hard to believe that people are so drawn to believe, without evidence of wrongdoing, that they are entitled to an explanation of others' actions.
That said, I can think of two plausible explanations (accounting for the fact that, to make this happen, the son would have to know that the woman was serving on the jury):
1) The father thought Facebook would be a good, inexpensive medium to get a 'read' on the jurors. (Creepy, but AFAIK not illegal; isn't it true that there are experts who try to profile juries?) He didn't want to do his own leg work, either for lack of familiarity with FB or to avoid raising potential red flags on ethical grounds (since his motives, if he did, could be misconstrued as something worse). So he sked his son to look into it, and got back more than he expected.
2) It was a coincidence. Of all the jurors in all of his dad's trials, he happeend to be Facebook friends with one of them who was dumb enough to post such a comment.
It is a step someone might take if planning to tamper with a jury.
It is also a step someone might take if they're curious.
Incidentally, I've also noticed that jury panels can represent a surprisingly small world. I sat on a panel (but was not kept on to serve with the jury). Also dismissed from that panel were the prosecutor's brother, and the wife of another prosecutor in the county. There were two teachers from the same school on the panel. Given the bredth of many people's so-called social networks, it is conceivable that he just stumbled on the post without having done any active snooping. (When you try to argue how phenomenally unlikely that is, don't forget that we're really talking about the odds of him having a connection with any member of any jury in any trial in which his father was involved, reduced only by the odds that a juror picked at random is as stupid as this one.)
But whether any given explanation is likely doesn't actually matter. The point is, the lawyer's son doesn't owe you an explanation for his actions; that's what "liberty" means. If he poked around on Facebook, he did so for reasons of his own. In and of itself, that is not a crime, even if someone planning to commit a crime might do it.
Now, if jury tampering had been (or is) shown to have occured, then in retrospect his actions would become interesting. They might provide direction to an investigation, and if a case were built against the son then it might even serve as part of a chain of evidence. If he had contacted the jurors or made himself or his relationship to the attourney known to them, that would probably be a slam dunk conviction all on its own. But unless he crossed those lines, you've got nothing.
The details of GP's question were incorrect, but overall there is a point to be made here.
In the picture that relativy paints, gravity is a property of spacetime. It is reasonable to question, then, how gravity can bring "something from nothing"; at a minimum it seems it can bring "something from nothing more than a pocket of spacetime". Perhaps a more thorough understanding of the "self-creating" property of the universe given gravity wuold clarify; but at the moment that is at best an article of faith for anyone in this discussion.
I can hypothesize any number of things that would have the property that if nothing existed they would spontaniously bring themselves into existance; but they don't all exist. Absent some spacetime to set a framework for the law of gravity, what makes the law of gravity distinct from any of those other hypothetical things?
I'm agnostic. My position specifically is that it is impossible to prove in any intellectual sense whether or not an intelligent entity created the universe. I don't find much use in any interpretation of any relgion that is literal enough to require an answer to that question.
In that context, I see nothing but a leap of faith in the idea that if we understand enough of the mechanism by which the Universe came to be, we could disprove God.
For someone to be speeding, there has to be a car on the road. There is a law that defines speeding even when there are no cars on the road.
To measure a force of gravity, there must be mass. The laws of gravity, which describe (perhaps among other things) a force that will occur in the presence of mass (and how said force will behave) can exist without any mass present.
Yeah. It rather sounds like you've lost sight of the argument, though.
I've never heard a Christian defend his position by claiming that Christianity doesn't require faith; GP's comment was in response to an atheist who claims that atheism doesn't require faith.
Both you and GP are correct; claiming to be sure of either position requires faith.
Slashdot Mirror
My thoughts exactly. And here's the thing: if I'm wrong, the kid should be able to prove it (or at least make a good go of trying).
Sure, the U.S. authorities might (claim to) be barred from discussing a specific case; but the kid can almost certainly produce the email (that being what Sent Mail is for). Of course, there would then be some back-and-forth about whether the email he produced was authentic, whether it was the email in question, etc. A real reporter might have asked to sit with him at his computer and look over his sent email folder. If he agreed to this (without being given enough warning to tamper with the message first), then he'd have some credibility.
Even if we just had his word as to the authenticity of the email, that might be enough to force an official response from the White House; if they show me an email, I'm inclined to believe it's real. And depending on what email service he uses, it might be possible (perhaps not easy) to get an authentication of what message was sent from them. (For example, since I use GMail, I'm willing to bet that Google could tell you whether I raelly sent a given email or not.)
The point being, if I'd just been told at college age that I were barred from a major country, I wouldn't just assume that it would never matter. I'd be making every effort to show that it was an over-reaction, if it were. This kid, on the other hand, can't come up with better than a "gosh, I don't think I said anything that bad"?
Not buying it.
So if two services offer the same speeds, that's evidence of collusion; but if a service offers different speeds, that excludes it from consideration because it doesn't meet your arbitrary definition of "broadband". Interesting.
Well, I'm going to address all of your comments in the context of your claim that broadband is necessary for access to government services, in spite of the fact that such a claim is nothing but an oft-repeated lie.
Hmm... the ancient art of proofreading.
I should probably clarify that the first two bullets were meant to read "you can probably choose to use your (local phone company | cable company) as your ISP"; this was made less clear when I added the notes about some areas having more than one of each. The point isn't whether you have choice of phone carrier - which is often a local monopoly unless you include VOIP or cell service - but rather than use of your phone carrier as your ISP is a choice you have.
Interesting. The religious killings you speak against are, of course, an expression of bigotry. Yet in your statement I find a bit of irony. Rarely do I hear someone speak of a classification of people as though it were a single individual, except that such speech is itself an expression of bigotry.
If I thought the ISP were truly misapplying its hate speech provision as an excuse to terminate access - for example, if this were a case where they retroactively defined hate speech to include saying "I hate my ISP" - then I'd agree. But actually, I'd say that burning of religious texts (or other "objectionable" materials) has long been associated as hate speech. You could argue that burning of a cross or hanging of a noose is, in and of itself, a peaceful but offensive act; or maybe you think at some point it crosses a line to being a threatening matter of hate speech.
I think really the point is, if you apply just what's in your ISP's contract (and not what you assume it to mean or how you think they'll enforce it), you have to know that they have a lot of subjective lattitude to decide if you're violating the TOS. In turn you are, of course, free to make your subjective determination about how troubling a given application of that policy is. What I'm saying is, to me this one isn't that big a deal.
Sure, it'd be nice to reduce it to black-and-white; but the only way to do that is to find an ISP with no subjective contract terms - i.e. to reduce it to a matter of law. So perhaps not many people are outright challenging the ISP's legal standing; and yet the magic words of the 1st Ammendment have been invoked by more than one. And, legal challenge or not, as I said I just can't see myself getting all that worked up over this particular application of the ISP's "hate speech" provision.
"I get tired about hearing about great old capitalism and choices in a market that essentially HAS NO CHOICES"
And if you were even remotely correct that there are NO CHOICES, I would agree with you.
Go on, explain to me why the last one isn't an option. Pretend broadband is necessary to survive in modern society (even though lots of people get by fine without it), or that it's a God-given right that somebody just has to provide you a service to your liking.
What you perceive as broadband being 'necessary', I perceive as the existing services being worth the money to you even though you protest otherwise.
"It's entirely possible that BOTH companies offering these services are simply going to dictate to you what you're allowed to do with their service"
"BOTH"? LOL. Ok, we'll pretend there are only two.
Right, the phone company (who hates competition in the ISP market from the cable company) is going to help the cable company compete by cooperating with a ban on IP-baed delivery of TV shows, thereby allowing the cable company to get by with such a ban. Very realistic concern.
I'm well aware of the limits of the competitive markets, but when it comes to whether those principles apply to ISP's, I'm not the one who hasn't thought the matter through.
"Some "infringement" is perfectly legal and ethical."
You almost had a point, and you had to go and ruin it with this gem.
Infringement is a legal term, so I'm not sure how you can claim that some infringement is legal. The law identifies some circumstances (like fair use) in which an act that would otherwise be infringement is not, by virtue of those circumstances, infringement. (See, e.g., U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 1, s107.) Such acts are perfectly legal, but then again they are not infringement.
Some infringement should be legal (because, as you note, copyright terms are out of control). You can argue that violating such laws is ethical, if your ethical code endorses civil disobedience. However, you need to remember that civil disobedience includes accepting the social and legal consequences of your actions, even though those consequences be improper and even though your goals largely involve abolishment of those consequences.
I'm not sure how an explicit contract provision can be called a "loophole". Sounds more like an RTFC situation to me.
My view is basically that I prefer an ISP to maintain a political neutrality[1] with respect to its subscriber's content (though really it can be a little more complicated than that); and given a clear, all-else-equal choice I would select one that does.
But, an ISP is typically a private entity[2]. Current court rulings hold that an ISP as a corporation has free speech and expression rights of its own; even to the extent that this is rubbish, it is the owner of its network. I do not subscribe to the idea that private property can be used against its owner's will for the furtherance of someone else's right to expression.
So the contract, including every enforcable provision - not just the ones you ilke as you dismiss the others as "loopholes" - is the only legal matter in play. I just can't muster a great deal of outrage at a company that chooses not to propagate this message, even if I do disagree with them on principle. Just as I disagree with the church's message but support their right to express it, I disagree with the ISP's decision but support their right to say "go express it somewhere else".
No ISP is going to concede that they owe you anything beyond the contract; so all those posting about how you won't do business with these guys now that they've shown how evil they are - good luck finding an ISP without a hate speech provision in their TOS.
-----
[1] By "political neutrality" I mean that I prefer they not distinguish between users' content based on the ideas expressed. This should not be confused with network neutrality in the sense that term is currently used. There is one similarity, though: In both cases I think the government's role is limited to imposing labeling laws at most.
[2] The importance of this distinction is hard to overstate IMO. It's the difference between "at first they came for the religiously bigotted hate mongers (by suppressing their speech), but I said nothing because I am not a religiously biggoted hate monger", vs. "at first they came for the ISP's (by compelling them to donate their property's use to the upholding of others' rights), but I said nothing because I am not an ISP".
I doubt many cable companies, when faced with a loss of TV subscribers, will turn around and alienate their ISP subscribers with limitations on their service. I'm betting they'd like to have a hand in the delivery of TV content, even if it is only as the ISP over which someone else's digital service is delivered.
As to the Net Neutrality issue, my answer to the question has been and will still be "labeling laws". Doesn't bother me one bit if my cable company wants to say "services X, Y, and Z are not allowed on our network", so long as that's clearly stated up front.
And no, I don't expect the ever-shrinking population that only has one ISP option (or doesn't know how to find the other options) to be driving industry practices WRT network management.
Well, someone still has to buy the textbook content (and other software) to put on the iPad. I'm not sure the expected lifespan for an iPad, but I'd argue that textbooks are more durable in the face of handling by a highschool (or younger) student who doesn't own it. Also consider that Apple designs its products to be used for a certain duration and then discarded (so you'll buy the new one).
The concept may have merit if the software adds value above and beyond what you get from a textbook. I cannot see it being cheaper than textbooks unless/until it can replace multiple textbooks for a given grade.
"confidentiality means nothing"
I'm curious why you believe this.
"I'm quite certain that if he's not found guilty he could actually sue HP for libel on this one, citing the complaint."
First, I suppose it's a bit of a technicallity, but this is a civil filing. He is not accused of a crime. There is no "guilty" or "not guilty".
Second, defamation suits are notoriously hard to win in the U.S. Filing a civil complaint that is later dismissed is not, in and of itself, at all likely to constitute libel. I would assume the courts would be very hesitant to view allegations in a civil suit as defamation (though if they did, I'd have a couple real winners to pursue myself).
But in any event, what claims of fact do you believe are defamatory and false in this particular filing? I didn't notice any.
Ah, so the local Tea Party rep takes notice, eh?
'So that's how the kids are spinning it these days?'
"These days"? Actually, those of us who were paying attention have been saying this since mid-2009. As soon as we started hearing extremeist anti-reform rhetoric, we predicted that it would hijack the debate and keep serious conservative objections from being raised and incorporated into the final measure. And it did.
But hey, sure, if it makes you happy, go on thinking something that was foreseen and predicted - and then came to pass - is just modern revisionist spin.
'You apparently missed it, but a Democrat controlled Congress and presidency was the sole "key factor".'
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
'Also, you exaggerate the influence of the group in 2009. My take is that they were just another bit of noise to the Republican leadership until they helped take some special elections (a key win was in early 2010 with a Republican as senator in Massachusetts).'
So that's how the kids are spinning it these days? The swing against the party in power at midterm has been, in historical context, unremarkable. They haven't "helped" the Republican party nearly as much as they'd have anyone believe.
'I thumbed through a bunch of your previous posts'
Wow, you must have a lot of time on your hands.
'...to attempt to get some idea of where you were coming from. Still no clue.'
I agree; you have no clue.
Well, sorry I don't fit neatly under one of your pre-conceived labels. Learn how to think for yourself and you'll have an easier time understanding those of us who already do.
'Merely being bad news to nebulous groups doesn't mean anything to me'
Well, damn, my entire post was predicated on the assumption that it would mean something to you. I'm all torn up over this.
And really? "Nebulous groups"? You don't know what "both sides of the aisle" means? Ok, fine, I'll help you out:
They are a deliberate nuisance to those with liberal views, and an unintentional menace to those with conservative views.
A lot of people seem to think so, but to that I say: hogwash.
If you see a session for someone who is not to be tracked, you don't have to know that the session was initiated by Arthur Dent, and Arthur Dent has asked to not be tracked. All you have to know is "this session is not to be tracked". Why on Earth would you need to know who you aren't tracking? To make sure they're authorized to not be tracked? The whole point is that the option should be available to everyone.
How about this example for web sites: add a "don't track me, bro" bit to the HTTP headers.
So you also deny the existance of people who claim to know there's no God? Well, on that one you are provably wrong.
Go on claiming to hold the One True Meaning of the label all you want, but I'm going to continue characterizing atheists' beliefs in terms of how self-described atheists characterize their own beliefs in actual conversation.
The Tea Party isn't news?
The group whose dominating and inept control of the conservative voice in 2009 was a key factor in passing the sweeping healthcare reform bill isn't news?
No, they're news. It's just that no matter which side of the aisle you're on, they're bad news.
And ironically, atheism is also the vanity of those who cannot answer 'I do not know'.
And you go right ahead and blame everyone but yourself for you spreading misinforamtion, while painting yourself as the victim by calling those who point out your errors "smug".
Because a ban on new drilling in depths over 500 feet would have prevented an explosion on an operational rig whose depth is less than 400 feet?
I doubt that.
False.
"Mariner's platform is in 340 feet of water, which would make any spill response much easier than the response to BP's blown-out well."
Citation
Right, for the government to expect you to keep a number secure, knowing that if that number were exposed then someone could steal your identity, and to then rely on that number to identify and authenticate someone wishing to do business with them; that would be unthinkable.
I find it hard to believe that people are so drawn to believe, without evidence of wrongdoing, that they are entitled to an explanation of others' actions.
That said, I can think of two plausible explanations (accounting for the fact that, to make this happen, the son would have to know that the woman was serving on the jury):
1) The father thought Facebook would be a good, inexpensive medium to get a 'read' on the jurors. (Creepy, but AFAIK not illegal; isn't it true that there are experts who try to profile juries?) He didn't want to do his own leg work, either for lack of familiarity with FB or to avoid raising potential red flags on ethical grounds (since his motives, if he did, could be misconstrued as something worse). So he sked his son to look into it, and got back more than he expected.
2) It was a coincidence. Of all the jurors in all of his dad's trials, he happeend to be Facebook friends with one of them who was dumb enough to post such a comment.
It is a step someone might take if planning to tamper with a jury.
It is also a step someone might take if they're curious.
Incidentally, I've also noticed that jury panels can represent a surprisingly small world. I sat on a panel (but was not kept on to serve with the jury). Also dismissed from that panel were the prosecutor's brother, and the wife of another prosecutor in the county. There were two teachers from the same school on the panel. Given the bredth of many people's so-called social networks, it is conceivable that he just stumbled on the post without having done any active snooping. (When you try to argue how phenomenally unlikely that is, don't forget that we're really talking about the odds of him having a connection with any member of any jury in any trial in which his father was involved, reduced only by the odds that a juror picked at random is as stupid as this one.)
But whether any given explanation is likely doesn't actually matter. The point is, the lawyer's son doesn't owe you an explanation for his actions; that's what "liberty" means. If he poked around on Facebook, he did so for reasons of his own. In and of itself, that is not a crime, even if someone planning to commit a crime might do it.
Now, if jury tampering had been (or is) shown to have occured, then in retrospect his actions would become interesting. They might provide direction to an investigation, and if a case were built against the son then it might even serve as part of a chain of evidence. If he had contacted the jurors or made himself or his relationship to the attourney known to them, that would probably be a slam dunk conviction all on its own. But unless he crossed those lines, you've got nothing.
The details of GP's question were incorrect, but overall there is a point to be made here.
In the picture that relativy paints, gravity is a property of spacetime. It is reasonable to question, then, how gravity can bring "something from nothing"; at a minimum it seems it can bring "something from nothing more than a pocket of spacetime". Perhaps a more thorough understanding of the "self-creating" property of the universe given gravity wuold clarify; but at the moment that is at best an article of faith for anyone in this discussion.
I can hypothesize any number of things that would have the property that if nothing existed they would spontaniously bring themselves into existance; but they don't all exist. Absent some spacetime to set a framework for the law of gravity, what makes the law of gravity distinct from any of those other hypothetical things?
I'm agnostic. My position specifically is that it is impossible to prove in any intellectual sense whether or not an intelligent entity created the universe. I don't find much use in any interpretation of any relgion that is literal enough to require an answer to that question.
In that context, I see nothing but a leap of faith in the idea that if we understand enough of the mechanism by which the Universe came to be, we could disprove God.
For someone to be speeding, there has to be a car on the road. There is a law that defines speeding even when there are no cars on the road.
To measure a force of gravity, there must be mass. The laws of gravity, which describe (perhaps among other things) a force that will occur in the presence of mass (and how said force will behave) can exist without any mass present.
Yeah. It rather sounds like you've lost sight of the argument, though.
I've never heard a Christian defend his position by claiming that Christianity doesn't require faith; GP's comment was in response to an atheist who claims that atheism doesn't require faith.
Both you and GP are correct; claiming to be sure of either position requires faith.