“Millionaire dating” isn’t considered explicit; “cougar” is.
I suspect it really is just that simple... “CougarLife.com” is considered explicit; Google would probably treat a site called “SugarDaddyHeaven.com” exactly the same.
I don't know how much simpler it can get, but Google outright said that the policy related to the concept of cougar dating as a whole, but they continue to run ads for Sugar Daddy sites.
They specifically asked if CougarLife would be open to the option of changing their domain name... whereas the mentioned “sugar daddy” sites were called DateAMillionaire.com and ArrangementSeekers.com.
Google obviously considers the terms “cougar” and “sugar daddy” to be non-family-safe, therefore “CougarLife” is out; the names “DateAMillionaire” and “ArrangementSeekers”, on the other hand, do not contain explicit terms.
The only other thing that I’d wonder (and I don’t want to investigate it while I’m at work, obviously) is whether the websites themselves, and the ads they were running, were similarly explicit for CougarLife vs. the other two sites. If so then yeah, there’s some indication of a double standard, but IMHO more suggestive (ha!) of the probability that the other sites fell through the cracks whereas CougarLife got flagged immediately because of its explicit domain name. TFA indicates that the DateAMillionare website does use the words “sugar baby” to promote itself, though it wasn’t clear whether or not they used that language in the ads or only on the website itself.
FALSE. The police's job is to haul you into court so that you can be punished for your misdeeds.
More to the point, it is the police’s job to haul people who break the law into court so that they can be punished for their misdeeds, thereby (indirectly) protecting the rest of us from future misdeeds of the lawbreakers.
They aren’t our personal bodyguards, no, but the law is designed to protect us, and the police are supposed to enforce the law, so indirectly they should be protecting us. However the law is also designed to protect us from the police, and the courts are designed to protect us from the police as well, so it’s supposed to balance out overall.
Of course, the ideal situation for the police (i.e. in which they have the most power) is when everyone is a lawbreaker; then they can selectively (if they want to harass you) haul you into court and prosecute you for breaking a law that shouldn’t have existed in the first place. The legislative process is supposed to protect us from this by not making bad laws in the first place, and the courts are supposed to strike down those bad laws, but the system doesn’t always seem to work as intended.
If you can’t (or won’t) answer a simple question then get off your high horse and quit accusing me of things that you yourself are guilty of.
Are people allowed to pray for their food, which was bought with federal assistance, in public? Or do you have some precious right to “freedom from religion” which precludes this? That is your original claim; that is the argument which I have roundly disproven half a dozen times; that is not a straw man, because it is exactly what you said. Your so-called “freedom from religion” does not exist.
You, however, are too stupid or too brainwashed to even realise that your opinion is wrong and your argument is faulty; I have no hope of changing your mind, merely making sure that it would be apparent to any rational person who reads this discourse which opinion was correct, based on both this case (which was reversed, correctly: they are allowed to pray), and in the other case I cited where UMKC was forced to permit religious groups to have the same use of publicly-funded property that non-religious groups had.
The legal system does not exist to ensure that guilty people are convicted. That is a fallacy that they’d love for you to believe.
The legal system exists to ensure that no innocent person is convicted of a crime that he or she did not commit.
The police’s job is to ensure that guilty people are convicted.
They’re not even the same fucking branch of the government! They are actually designed to exist as checks and balances on each other!
The police are part of the EXECUTIVE branch. It is their job to ENFORCE the law. The court system is the JUDICIAL branch, and exists to ensure that the executive branch doesn’t get away with accusing people of crimes they didn’t commit! That is their WHOLE FUCKING JOB. (That, and making sure the legislative branch doesn’t get away with writing bad laws for the executive branch to enforce in the first place.)
The officer made the proof as his testimony at trial. That meets the burden of proof.
Any other person’s testimony would be considered hearsay evidence and not proof.
You are innocent until proven guilty. You were cited and told to go to court. You were not told to pay your fine if you were innocent you were given I am sure a way to pay if you were pleading guilty or no contest. You went to a court and you were judge by either a judge or a jury (your peers) and He/She/They felt your evidence did not prove you were innocent. They felt that the cop was correct in giving you the ticket and upon being found guilty (no longer innocent) you were told to pay a 300.00 fine.
Oddly enough, I was never proven guilty. Since, after all, it would be rather difficult to prove that I did something I hadn’t done.
They have cameras in all of their cars now; why aren’t they required to prove, with video evidence, their accusation? Because the system is biased and the testimony of a cop is worth more than the testimony of a citizen.
In regards to the cops saying something falsely their is a process to which if they under oath say something happened and it didn't happen then that is called perjury. So yes a legal action in a criminal court can take place. But how do you prove he didn't see you do it and wasn't able to prove beyond his word it didn't happen? Had you brought that camera in and he swore under oath that you did it and you brought that video in then that would be a different case. Your DA would have all rights to go after their ass. I have seen cops go to jail for lying under oath.
Yeah, that’s a slender chance he took, I guess. The possibility that a citizen was actually paranoid enough to be taping while he drove, in order to prove after-the-fact that he didn’t do the crime that he wasn’t even aware that he was accused of until he was pulled over (and therefore too late to start taping).
Oh, and then of course you’d have to have KEPT A COPY OF THE TAPE, SECRETLY, so that it wouldn’t be confiscated as “evidence” and mysteriously be deemed inadmissible, or irrelevant, never to be heard of again.
Yeah, if the tape hit the media there would be a furor and the cop would be in deep shit. But not because he’s a corrupt bastard; merely because he got caught.
When a cop can pull a citizen over and give him a ticket for a crime he didn’t commit and the judge determines that “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” he did in fact commit the crime... yes, the system is broken.
The system works. Its just not the way you want it to work because it didn't find you not guilty. You wanted the cop to have you on camera.
The system is broken. If the system can convict someone of a crime they didn’t commit based on hearsay evidence, the system is broken.
I wanted the cop to do his fucking job. His job was not pulling young drivers over at 10 or 11 in the nighttime and giving them tickets for stuff they hadn’t done under the assumption that they were up to no good.
It probably is a pretty good indicator that you’re being childish and petulant, but it should be your right. Can I say that I’d never do it? Well, I admit that I’ve been known to be childish and/or petulant at times...
Burden of proof is on you to prove your side of the case. Remember the police use their word which is seen in the courts as what really happened. Not saying this didn't happen but I wasn't there so I either way I can't say.
No. Burden of proof is on the officer to prove that I broke the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Oh wait... you’re exactly right. Burden of proof is on me, and that’s why there was absolutely nothing I could do except pay the fine. If the officer claims I did something, I’m guilty unless I can prove I didn’t... and if I can prove I didn’t (say by some miracle I’d caught the whole thing on tape), is the officer going to be in big trouble for testifying falsely under oath? *chuckle* yeah, I wish.
The police are doing their job when they write you a ticket for speeding. You were speeding you got a ticket.
The police were not doing their job when they wrote me a ticket for turning left at a no-left-turn intersection. I did not turn left. True story.
You said a foul word their is a law on the books that says you can be punished for it.
Unconstitutional.
You were jay walking their is a law on the books that prevents that. You were smoking weed in your house their is a law against it.
The police’s job is to protect me from others, and if necessary, to protect them from me. It is not their job to protect me from myself.
These laws that were made by the people for the people is being enforced by a group of people who were given the power to enforce the laws made by the people with a law that was made for the people by the people.
I know you’re trying to be clever but when you can’t keep the tenses straight between your nouns and verbs anymore you might be trying too hard. Not to mention I had to read it three times to figure out what it said (which was of course just what you had intended).
The person you want to speak with in regards to the fucking issue here is your towns council / State legislators and not the fucking police. You don't like the laws then have them changed.
Now that I don’t disagree with... but will it get me back the $300 for the no-left-turn ticket and the legal expense of getting it converted to a non-moving violation?
Depending on the tone and context it might have easily been sarcastic. If you just asked him “Can you have it done by Monday?” and he’d just checked his schedule that’s booked clear up ’till a week from Monday, for example...
Just about everyone is less-than-average in some aspect. Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder, which means it’s a broad range going from just about normal all the way to really mentally impaired.
It’s not like blindness; it’s more like near-sightedness. Some people get it worse than others, and some people are just about impaired enough to be considered legally blind. However, everyone fits in somewhere on the autism spectrum... including people who are considered normal.
You can’t have just a touch of herpes, but you can of Asperger’s. Whether or not it makes you “disabled” is debatable.
I'm not a prude or anything, I just find that most people who swear all the time have almost nothing useful or interesting to say, or otherwise full of self importance.
I'm within my rights to suggest a cop "Fuck off.", but I can't advise him, "Go fuck yourself."?
As long as you include a disclaimer you should be fine in either case...
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Please consult with your physician or health practitioner prior to beginning any exercise/diet program.
Sounds like the precedent has been set, but the police haven’t quite gotten the message yet...
“Cops don’t understand that there’s a legal definition of obscenity and therefore issue citations for profanity,” said Sara Mullen, a spokeswoman for the ACLU.
Tuthill added that the ACLU will continue to bring lawsuits until the practice of issuing citations for swearing is stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
“Millionaire dating” isn’t considered explicit; “cougar” is.
I suspect it really is just that simple... “CougarLife.com” is considered explicit; Google would probably treat a site called “SugarDaddyHeaven.com” exactly the same.
Since I’m at work, can you do the same search for “cougar” and see what comes up?
Searching for an explicit term (with safe search off) likely un-censors the ads.
I don't know how much simpler it can get, but Google outright said that the policy related to the concept of cougar dating as a whole, but they continue to run ads for Sugar Daddy sites.
They specifically asked if CougarLife would be open to the option of changing their domain name... whereas the mentioned “sugar daddy” sites were called DateAMillionaire.com and ArrangementSeekers.com.
Google obviously considers the terms “cougar” and “sugar daddy” to be non-family-safe, therefore “CougarLife” is out; the names “DateAMillionaire” and “ArrangementSeekers”, on the other hand, do not contain explicit terms.
The only other thing that I’d wonder (and I don’t want to investigate it while I’m at work, obviously) is whether the websites themselves, and the ads they were running, were similarly explicit for CougarLife vs. the other two sites. If so then yeah, there’s some indication of a double standard, but IMHO more suggestive (ha!) of the probability that the other sites fell through the cracks whereas CougarLife got flagged immediately because of its explicit domain name. TFA indicates that the DateAMillionare website does use the words “sugar baby” to promote itself, though it wasn’t clear whether or not they used that language in the ads or only on the website itself.
FALSE. The police's job is to haul you into court so that you can be punished for your misdeeds.
More to the point, it is the police’s job to haul people who break the law into court so that they can be punished for their misdeeds, thereby (indirectly) protecting the rest of us from future misdeeds of the lawbreakers.
They aren’t our personal bodyguards, no, but the law is designed to protect us, and the police are supposed to enforce the law, so indirectly they should be protecting us. However the law is also designed to protect us from the police, and the courts are designed to protect us from the police as well, so it’s supposed to balance out overall.
Of course, the ideal situation for the police (i.e. in which they have the most power) is when everyone is a lawbreaker; then they can selectively (if they want to harass you) haul you into court and prosecute you for breaking a law that shouldn’t have existed in the first place. The legislative process is supposed to protect us from this by not making bad laws in the first place, and the courts are supposed to strike down those bad laws, but the system doesn’t always seem to work as intended.
If you can’t (or won’t) answer a simple question then get off your high horse and quit accusing me of things that you yourself are guilty of.
Are people allowed to pray for their food, which was bought with federal assistance, in public? Or do you have some precious right to “freedom from religion” which precludes this? That is your original claim; that is the argument which I have roundly disproven half a dozen times; that is not a straw man, because it is exactly what you said. Your so-called “freedom from religion” does not exist.
You, however, are too stupid or too brainwashed to even realise that your opinion is wrong and your argument is faulty; I have no hope of changing your mind, merely making sure that it would be apparent to any rational person who reads this discourse which opinion was correct, based on both this case (which was reversed, correctly: they are allowed to pray), and in the other case I cited where UMKC was forced to permit religious groups to have the same use of publicly-funded property that non-religious groups had.
The legal system does not exist to ensure that guilty people are convicted. That is a fallacy that they’d love for you to believe.
The legal system exists to ensure that no innocent person is convicted of a crime that he or she did not commit.
The police’s job is to ensure that guilty people are convicted.
They’re not even the same fucking branch of the government! They are actually designed to exist as checks and balances on each other!
The police are part of the EXECUTIVE branch. It is their job to ENFORCE the law. The court system is the JUDICIAL branch, and exists to ensure that the executive branch doesn’t get away with accusing people of crimes they didn’t commit! That is their WHOLE FUCKING JOB. (That, and making sure the legislative branch doesn’t get away with writing bad laws for the executive branch to enforce in the first place.)
The officer made the proof as his testimony at trial. That meets the burden of proof.
Any other person’s testimony would be considered hearsay evidence and not proof.
You are innocent until proven guilty. You were cited and told to go to court. You were not told to pay your fine if you were innocent you were given I am sure a way to pay if you were pleading guilty or no contest. You went to a court and you were judge by either a judge or a jury (your peers) and He/She/They felt your evidence did not prove you were innocent. They felt that the cop was correct in giving you the ticket and upon being found guilty (no longer innocent) you were told to pay a 300.00 fine.
Oddly enough, I was never proven guilty. Since, after all, it would be rather difficult to prove that I did something I hadn’t done.
They have cameras in all of their cars now; why aren’t they required to prove, with video evidence, their accusation? Because the system is biased and the testimony of a cop is worth more than the testimony of a citizen.
In regards to the cops saying something falsely their is a process to which if they under oath say something happened and it didn't happen then that is called perjury. So yes a legal action in a criminal court can take place. But how do you prove he didn't see you do it and wasn't able to prove beyond his word it didn't happen? Had you brought that camera in and he swore under oath that you did it and you brought that video in then that would be a different case. Your DA would have all rights to go after their ass. I have seen cops go to jail for lying under oath.
Yeah, that’s a slender chance he took, I guess. The possibility that a citizen was actually paranoid enough to be taping while he drove, in order to prove after-the-fact that he didn’t do the crime that he wasn’t even aware that he was accused of until he was pulled over (and therefore too late to start taping).
Oh, and then of course you’d have to have KEPT A COPY OF THE TAPE, SECRETLY, so that it wouldn’t be confiscated as “evidence” and mysteriously be deemed inadmissible, or irrelevant, never to be heard of again.
Yeah, if the tape hit the media there would be a furor and the cop would be in deep shit. But not because he’s a corrupt bastard; merely because he got caught.
When a cop can pull a citizen over and give him a ticket for a crime he didn’t commit and the judge determines that “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” he did in fact commit the crime... yes, the system is broken.
The system works. Its just not the way you want it to work because it didn't find you not guilty. You wanted the cop to have you on camera.
The system is broken. If the system can convict someone of a crime they didn’t commit based on hearsay evidence, the system is broken.
I wanted the cop to do his fucking job. His job was not pulling young drivers over at 10 or 11 in the nighttime and giving them tickets for stuff they hadn’t done under the assumption that they were up to no good.
...and “Paddy” was an ethnic slur for an Irishman. Hence the name, Paddy Wagon.
It was pretty ambiguous.
I’m from Missouri... you’ll have to show me.
Should have the right to say.
It probably is a pretty good indicator that you’re being childish and petulant, but it should be your right. Can I say that I’d never do it? Well, I admit that I’ve been known to be childish and/or petulant at times...
Burden of proof is on you to prove your side of the case. Remember the police use their word which is seen in the courts as what really happened. Not saying this didn't happen but I wasn't there so I either way I can't say.
No. Burden of proof is on the officer to prove that I broke the law. Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
Oh wait... you’re exactly right. Burden of proof is on me, and that’s why there was absolutely nothing I could do except pay the fine. If the officer claims I did something, I’m guilty unless I can prove I didn’t... and if I can prove I didn’t (say by some miracle I’d caught the whole thing on tape), is the officer going to be in big trouble for testifying falsely under oath? *chuckle* yeah, I wish.
The system is broken.
The police are doing their job when they write you a ticket for speeding. You were speeding you got a ticket.
The police were not doing their job when they wrote me a ticket for turning left at a no-left-turn intersection. I did not turn left. True story.
You said a foul word their is a law on the books that says you can be punished for it.
Unconstitutional.
You were jay walking their is a law on the books that prevents that. You were smoking weed in your house their is a law against it.
The police’s job is to protect me from others, and if necessary, to protect them from me. It is not their job to protect me from myself.
These laws that were made by the people for the people is being enforced by a group of people who were given the power to enforce the laws made by the people with a law that was made for the people by the people.
I know you’re trying to be clever but when you can’t keep the tenses straight between your nouns and verbs anymore you might be trying too hard. Not to mention I had to read it three times to figure out what it said (which was of course just what you had intended).
The person you want to speak with in regards to the fucking issue here is your towns council / State legislators and not the fucking police. You don't like the laws then have them changed.
Now that I don’t disagree with... but will it get me back the $300 for the no-left-turn ticket and the legal expense of getting it converted to a non-moving violation?
Oh... I mistook his pun for sarcasm.
The cable guy lied.
Depending on the tone and context it might have easily been sarcastic. If you just asked him “Can you have it done by Monday?” and he’d just checked his schedule that’s booked clear up ’till a week from Monday, for example...
The fact that you're uncomfortable explaining some simple words to your son
With all due respect – it’s not really that simple...
Normally I’d just send you to www.lmgtfy.com... but I’ve been waiting a long time for a good excuse to send someone to www.justfuckinggoogleit.com.
Just about everyone is less-than-average in some aspect. Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder, which means it’s a broad range going from just about normal all the way to really mentally impaired.
It’s not like blindness; it’s more like near-sightedness. Some people get it worse than others, and some people are just about impaired enough to be considered legally blind. However, everyone fits in somewhere on the autism spectrum... including people who are considered normal.
You can’t have just a touch of herpes, but you can of Asperger’s. Whether or not it makes you “disabled” is debatable.
Was that sarcastic?
I'm not a prude or anything, I just find that most people who swear all the time have almost nothing useful or interesting to say, or otherwise full of self importance.
Well... at least it makes them easy to spot.
The latter is exactly what you DONT have a right to say
Incorrect.
Not to a police officer anyways
Incorrect.
nor should you.
Incorrect.
You want to live in a country without police?
Incorrect.
I want to live in a country where the fucking police do their fucking job and quit fucking with people who they shouldn’t be fucking with.
Is that fucking clear?
the ACLU will continue to bring lawsuits
[citation needed]
You’re kidding... right?
It might endanger children’s tender young ears, or some nonsense like that.
That wasn’t Slashdot censoring, it was samzenpus self-censoring. He could’ve said fucking if he’d wanted.
I'm within my rights to suggest a cop "Fuck off.", but I can't advise him, "Go fuck yourself."?
As long as you include a disclaimer you should be fine in either case...
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Please consult with your physician or health practitioner prior to beginning any exercise/diet program.
Sounds like the precedent has been set, but the police haven’t quite gotten the message yet...
“Cops don’t understand that there’s a legal definition of obscenity and therefore issue citations for profanity,” said Sara Mullen, a spokeswoman for the ACLU.
Tuthill added that the ACLU will continue to bring lawsuits until the practice of issuing citations for swearing is stopped.