How about, we shouldn't worry about terrorism - because if we don't get scared, terrorism has FAILED.
The response should have been an investigation, and a change in hijacker handling policy (previous policy was to just give them what they wanted) and a "cockpit door stays locked at all times" policy. And then we should have started flying again the next week, with EXACTLY the same airport security as before.
Everything that was done by the government was instead calculated to terrorize the population, as a power grab.
No, it's the sheeple who see it as a large entity attacking our country.
Now, it may have become that because of our actions since then, but when it happened it was a small, isolated group of crazies.
Whether that group of crazies was religious fanatics in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan or Washington, we will likely never know. I suspect it was most likely simply a happy accident for the religious fanatics in Washington.
Seriously, Linux would be MUCH better if somebody would write a full implementation of Finder for it. I won't go into windoze, it's just an abortion, there's no saving it.
You know, I don't think it's that most of us really want a phone with fewer features.
I think it's that we want the durability and voice quality of the older phones back. I had a Panasonic bag phone that lasted over 10 years, with quite a bit of bashing around. A call on that phone sounded like talking on a land line, unless you were really out in the boonies.
These days, I've got a Motorola v551, and I like features like being able to sync my address book with iSync over Bluetooth. I use the Bluetooth headset quite a bit too. I've even had the camera come in handy a few times. But, there is no way this phone will last 10 years, it's not even likely to make it to 5. And, the voice quality is just crap compared to the Panasonic.
I'd probably never buy a ringtone, but I have dumped a few midi and mp3 files on the v551, and I do like being able to tell my phone from anybody else's by the ring (yes, it plays the Imperial March - get over it.)
I would go as far as saying that in no circumstances should it be permitted to have both a dual copyright and patent on anything. If you're going to allow software patents at all (not a good idea, but that's a different discussion) then a software patent should be required to contain implementation code, and that code should be uncopyrightable.
Freedom of speech means PRECISELY freedom from consequences.
Under your definition of free speech, China has free speech, as you can say anything you want there, but when you say some things, the police arrest you later.
Actually, calling someone a "retard" is not libel. The term "retard" is a common-language insult without a presumption of accuracy - that is, it's inherently unable to be a libelous term.
It's similar to the term "butt-head" as used in the case of Apple Computer when sued by Carl Sagan for using the code name "BHA" which was generally understood to mean "butt-headed astronomer". The judge ruled that the term "butt-head" cannot be considered libel as it is impossible to use the term "butt-head" to discredit a reputable astronomer.
And in the case of "retard", it is not believable that someone writing an anonymous review on Amazon would have actual knowledge of a published author's mental retardation. Therefore, you cannot prove that calling someone a retard is anything but opinion in the vast majority of circumstances.
"Spammer" is more troublesome, in that it is not a strictly defined term that might well be true, and might be significantly damaging to someone's reputation. Of course, it would be easy enough to prove its truth, given that "spammer" can be defined as "one who sends unsolicited commercial email" and chances are good that many authors have at some point sent unsolicited commercial email.
I suspect that "lawful justification or excuse" will pretty clearly include actual truth or statements of opinion, if you look up the rest of the statute and associated case law.
There was absolutely nothing prohibiting the national guard or any other military branch from going into New Orleans and providing search and rescue, help sandbagging, or any other non-law-enforcement aid.
The only thing these laws prevented is keeping a branch of the military, which has no business doing law enforcement since that's not their function and they're not trained for it, from playing cop.
As far as I'm concerned, any branch of the military has no business ever being put in a law enforcement role, no matter what the circumstances. Enabling it is helping to pave the road to dictatorship.
Hmmm... Sounds like what you need is somebody who is in NJ, does most of his business in NJ, is also licensed in NY, handles the occasional NY case, has a blog, and REALLY likes the First Amendment.
Well, I'd call "hate speech" something like "the right to free speech exercised properly by someone I disagree with" and violence would be "violent crime".
What's so hard about that? Sure, it's a few more words, but "terrorism" is an inaccurate label.
If you told me that 1 of 1000 people in a room had a bomb, that wouldn't change the reasonableness at all, because you'd be full of shit.
The risk of anyone actually having a bomb in an airport is actually much lower, of course. You've got better odds of having 1000 people randomly in a room being powerball winners. And with odds like that, searching everyone in the room is completely unreasonable.
And I find my rights being trampled on much more of a risk than global terrorism.
I would say that your assertion that some speech is not acceptable is far more dangerous to our rights as humans than any speech could be. Now, while I would certainly agree you have a right to say it, I would say that you are completely, utterly, and dangerously wrong.
Even your example of "fire in a crowded theater" no longer holds the relevance it once did. When that incorrect exception to the First Amendment was put forth, the danger of a stampede killing many people was FAR greater than it is today, with our mandated clear exits and well lit exit signs. The result of someone shouting fire would likely be annoyed patrons standing in the street, if they even paid any attention at all, as I would suggest they would not, considering how frequently fire alarms are ignored on the basis that most are false.
Even child porn, bad though it is, isn't a valid reason to surrender our right to free speech. The witch hunt that has resulted from the ban has created a culture of fear that far exceeds the damage to the children involved. I would suggest that the appropriate response to this should be to attack the production, and accept the product as a bad result of necessary freedom.
But what you're using even these limited examples to justify is an attempt by you to dictate to other parents your overprotective form of parenting. And that, when combined with government force, is a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, and a violation of all of our inalienable rights.
So, while I firmly stand behind your right to have these views and to speak of them, I consider them to be as abhorrent as the views of the Ku Klux Klan, or of the Westboro Baptist Church.
I had a Panasonic bag phone for about 10 years. Great voice quality, horrible portability. The DynaTAC wouldn't work where I lived, it didn't have enough power.
I forget the details, but I do remember minutes were $.25.
I've also had the same cell phone number since then.
Yeah, I stopped wearing a watch years ago, roughly about the same time I got my first digital cell phone. It just didn't make sense to have two devices with clocks, and the watch only had a clock and a calculator. The cell phone also had voice communication capabilities.
Of course, I also consider non-digital watches to be utterly worthless other than as pretty museum pieces. The art and history are nice, but as a useful tool, I just don't get it.
I'll skip mentioning my age, but I've had a cell phone since 1988, so I'm not that young.
Well, they'll be able to get the "send in your MacBook/MacBook Pro and we'll solder on a faster CPU" business - they've done that sort of thing before with soldered chips, it should actually be easier now, since they only have to change the chip itself.
And they can sell standard upgrade chips to users who feel comfy doing the other chip replacements on other machines but would rather buy from a vendor who is familiar with the Mac.
Actually, I would say the excuse/very good reason for making that analogy is that while it is an exaggeration, it's a pretty good comparison considering that the movie companies make the comparison of copying to stealing, which is offensive and inappropriate, almost bordering on libel.
And while you may not like negative campaigning, or "fight fire with fire" strategy, it gets people's attention, and it works.
And with the garbage being dished out in the other direction, we need something that works.
Does the UK respect and protect the free press, or have restrictions that are not present in the US?
Take your pick. Either you have a free press, or you don't, and it sounds very much like you don't.
Now this isn't to say that I would consider the US to have a perfectly free press, it doesn't. But it sounds to me like the UK has a very much not free press.
And it's very much not free when it comes to publishing articles about important issues. That's a problem.
Delaying publication of D-Day information may very well have been the right thing to do (and I would say that under the circumstances present then,it was), but it was most assuredly NOT good journalism.
Good journalism doesn't include delaying publication to alter the course of events. I would even go so far as to call that very bad journalism.
Slashdot Mirror
How about, we shouldn't worry about terrorism - because if we don't get scared, terrorism has FAILED.
The response should have been an investigation, and a change in hijacker handling policy (previous policy was to just give them what they wanted) and a "cockpit door stays locked at all times" policy. And then we should have started flying again the next week, with EXACTLY the same airport security as before.
Everything that was done by the government was instead calculated to terrorize the population, as a power grab.
No, it's the sheeple who see it as a large entity attacking our country.
Now, it may have become that because of our actions since then, but when it happened it was a small, isolated group of crazies.
Whether that group of crazies was religious fanatics in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan or Washington, we will likely never know. I suspect it was most likely simply a happy accident for the religious fanatics in Washington.
Someone, please mod parent up!
That's not a troll. That's simply accurate.
Um, because the points are mostly wrong?
Seriously, Linux would be MUCH better if somebody would write a full implementation of Finder for it. I won't go into windoze, it's just an abortion, there's no saving it.
Most of the lead in a television is in the glass of the picture tube.
It's not going anywhere - it's part of the glass. It will NOT leach.
You know, I don't think it's that most of us really want a phone with fewer features.
I think it's that we want the durability and voice quality of the older phones back. I had a Panasonic bag phone that lasted over 10 years, with quite a bit of bashing around. A call on that phone sounded like talking on a land line, unless you were really out in the boonies.
These days, I've got a Motorola v551, and I like features like being able to sync my address book with iSync over Bluetooth. I use the Bluetooth headset quite a bit too. I've even had the camera come in handy a few times. But, there is no way this phone will last 10 years, it's not even likely to make it to 5. And, the voice quality is just crap compared to the Panasonic.
I'd probably never buy a ringtone, but I have dumped a few midi and mp3 files on the v551, and I do like being able to tell my phone from anybody else's by the ring (yes, it plays the Imperial March - get over it.)
I would go as far as saying that in no circumstances should it be permitted to have both a dual copyright and patent on anything. If you're going to allow software patents at all (not a good idea, but that's a different discussion) then a software patent should be required to contain implementation code, and that code should be uncopyrightable.
Freedom of speech means PRECISELY freedom from consequences.
Under your definition of free speech, China has free speech, as you can say anything you want there, but when you say some things, the police arrest you later.
It sounds like that's the case in Canada as well.
I would say that in an ideal world, you should be able to speak or publish freely without fear of reprisal.
That's extremely difficult today, and why anonymity is sometimes VERY necessary.
But you do have a quick and easy way of dealing with something someone else says or publishes today. The legal system doesn't come into play at all.
You can just ignore it.
Actually, calling someone a "retard" is not libel. The term "retard" is a common-language insult without a presumption of accuracy - that is, it's inherently unable to be a libelous term.
It's similar to the term "butt-head" as used in the case of Apple Computer when sued by Carl Sagan for using the code name "BHA" which was generally understood to mean "butt-headed astronomer". The judge ruled that the term "butt-head" cannot be considered libel as it is impossible to use the term "butt-head" to discredit a reputable astronomer.
And in the case of "retard", it is not believable that someone writing an anonymous review on Amazon would have actual knowledge of a published author's mental retardation. Therefore, you cannot prove that calling someone a retard is anything but opinion in the vast majority of circumstances.
"Spammer" is more troublesome, in that it is not a strictly defined term that might well be true, and might be significantly damaging to someone's reputation. Of course, it would be easy enough to prove its truth, given that "spammer" can be defined as "one who sends unsolicited commercial email" and chances are good that many authors have at some point sent unsolicited commercial email.
I suspect that "lawful justification or excuse" will pretty clearly include actual truth or statements of opinion, if you look up the rest of the statute and associated case law.
I have never heard of such a thing occurring in a criminal case in the US, and it would be unconstitutional.
You must be thinking of civil cases.
There was absolutely nothing prohibiting the national guard or any other military branch from going into New Orleans and providing search and rescue, help sandbagging, or any other non-law-enforcement aid.
The only thing these laws prevented is keeping a branch of the military, which has no business doing law enforcement since that's not their function and they're not trained for it, from playing cop.
As far as I'm concerned, any branch of the military has no business ever being put in a law enforcement role, no matter what the circumstances. Enabling it is helping to pave the road to dictatorship.
Hmmm... Sounds like what you need is somebody who is in NJ, does most of his business in NJ, is also licensed in NY, handles the occasional NY case, has a blog, and REALLY likes the First Amendment.
Is there anybody who meets those criteria?
I would rather live in a divided, hateful country than one which isn't free.
Well, I'd call "hate speech" something like "the right to free speech exercised properly by someone I disagree with" and violence would be "violent crime".
What's so hard about that? Sure, it's a few more words, but "terrorism" is an inaccurate label.
If you told me that 1 of 1000 people in a room had a bomb, that wouldn't change the reasonableness at all, because you'd be full of shit.
The risk of anyone actually having a bomb in an airport is actually much lower, of course. You've got better odds of having 1000 people randomly in a room being powerball winners. And with odds like that, searching everyone in the room is completely unreasonable.
And I find my rights being trampled on much more of a risk than global terrorism.
I would say that your assertion that some speech is not acceptable is far more dangerous to our rights as humans than any speech could be. Now, while I would certainly agree you have a right to say it, I would say that you are completely, utterly, and dangerously wrong.
Even your example of "fire in a crowded theater" no longer holds the relevance it once did. When that incorrect exception to the First Amendment was put forth, the danger of a stampede killing many people was FAR greater than it is today, with our mandated clear exits and well lit exit signs. The result of someone shouting fire would likely be annoyed patrons standing in the street, if they even paid any attention at all, as I would suggest they would not, considering how frequently fire alarms are ignored on the basis that most are false.
Even child porn, bad though it is, isn't a valid reason to surrender our right to free speech. The witch hunt that has resulted from the ban has created a culture of fear that far exceeds the damage to the children involved. I would suggest that the appropriate response to this should be to attack the production, and accept the product as a bad result of necessary freedom.
But what you're using even these limited examples to justify is an attempt by you to dictate to other parents your overprotective form of parenting. And that, when combined with government force, is a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, and a violation of all of our inalienable rights.
So, while I firmly stand behind your right to have these views and to speak of them, I consider them to be as abhorrent as the views of the Ku Klux Klan, or of the Westboro Baptist Church.
I had a Panasonic bag phone for about 10 years. Great voice quality, horrible portability. The DynaTAC wouldn't work where I lived, it didn't have enough power.
I forget the details, but I do remember minutes were $.25.
I've also had the same cell phone number since then.
Extreme liberal? What?
The Democrats are a bit right of center. They aren't liberal.
The Republicans just make them look liberal, because they are only slightly to the left of the fascists.
The US has no major party representing anything that could be considered liberal.
I could get behind a Pirate Party candidate, though.
Yeah, I stopped wearing a watch years ago, roughly about the same time I got my first digital cell phone. It just didn't make sense to have two devices with clocks, and the watch only had a clock and a calculator. The cell phone also had voice communication capabilities.
Of course, I also consider non-digital watches to be utterly worthless other than as pretty museum pieces. The art and history are nice, but as a useful tool, I just don't get it.
I'll skip mentioning my age, but I've had a cell phone since 1988, so I'm not that young.
Well, they'll be able to get the "send in your MacBook/MacBook Pro and we'll solder on a faster CPU" business - they've done that sort of thing before with soldered chips, it should actually be easier now, since they only have to change the chip itself.
And they can sell standard upgrade chips to users who feel comfy doing the other chip replacements on other machines but would rather buy from a vendor who is familiar with the Mac.
Maybe if that happened, it would help to get stupid laws repealed...
Actually, I would say the excuse/very good reason for making that analogy is that while it is an exaggeration, it's a pretty good comparison considering that the movie companies make the comparison of copying to stealing, which is offensive and inappropriate, almost bordering on libel.
And while you may not like negative campaigning, or "fight fire with fire" strategy, it gets people's attention, and it works.
And with the garbage being dished out in the other direction, we need something that works.
Does the UK respect and protect the free press, or have restrictions that are not present in the US?
Take your pick. Either you have a free press, or you don't, and it sounds very much like you don't.
Now this isn't to say that I would consider the US to have a perfectly free press, it doesn't. But it sounds to me like the UK has a very much not free press.
And it's very much not free when it comes to publishing articles about important issues. That's a problem.
Delaying publication of D-Day information may very well have been the right thing to do (and I would say that under the circumstances present then,it was), but it was most assuredly NOT good journalism.
Good journalism doesn't include delaying publication to alter the course of events. I would even go so far as to call that very bad journalism.