Now, tell me how, if the fairness doctrine is to "equalize" time for viewpoints on the airwaves, that it is NOT DEVISED to censor many conservative viewpoints? And also, who determines what content is conservative and what content is liberal?
The Fairness Doctrine was ended in 1987. What does the current makeup of radio shows, more than 20 years later, have to do with the goals of the Fairness Doctrine?
Thats strong language considering you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. How about reading some history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine and never speaking again?
And here comes another another semiliterate. The same damn article you point me to explains that the Fairness Doctrine was created to target communism. Hmmmm...tell me again that it was created to target conservative viewpoints.
I've also seen a couple of replies here that think it makes a difference that these proposed rules are talking about Congress and not the general public. Doesn't matter. The Constitution protects the rights of Congresscritters to speak in public too.
If you've read the replies to the story, how on earth did you miss the countless ones explaining that TFA is completely lying about the issue, the blogger who wrote TFA is a liar, and that nobody is trying to censor anyone?
Also, if you read the PDF of the letter mentioned, it is about technical limitations of U.S. government support for internet access. The rules proposed seem very sensible. The letter says NOTHING about Nancy Pelosi.
The author of the blog is apparently a factually-challenged right-wing nutjob whose reading comprehension places him or her at, generously, a 2nd grade reading level.
Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly stupid that it defies belief they have the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog. The Fairness Doctrine applied to both liberal and conservative viewpoints, and anyone who says differently is a liar.
Secondly, even a cursory review of the letter disproves the blogger's rant. The letter itself states that the recommendations do not change any of the rules governing members of congress in their official communications.
Why do right-wing bloggers tend to be so stupid? I mean, stupidity isn't restricted to any one side of the ideological spectrum, but for some reason on the internet the right-wing fruitcakes like the blogger in question exhibit such profound stupidity that it makes you wonder how they function in day-to-day life. I mean, you'd think their mental deficiency would result in them blowing themselves up or poisoning themselves, or getting run over by a train or something.
You shouldn't assume any of the views espoused by characters in Starship Troopers to be a faithful representation of Heinlein's philosophy. (Perhaps you should try to read more critically?)
Heinlein was not shy about sharing his philosophy outside his novels. Some of the ideas espoused in Starship Troopers he probably didn't really believe, but there was plenty that he did, as he did give his opinion on things outside his fiction. If you can't follow the simple idea that fiction authors sometimes (gasp!) use their fiction books as vehicles for their ideology, then you're a simpleton.
so now they need a law, but the constitution says you cant pass laws retroactively so I'm sure the retroactive immunity clause could be challenged in court too,
Unfortunately, you can pass laws retroactively; you just can't pass laws that criminalize past behavior. Doing the reverse is perfectly legal.
Then, as a lawyer, you are aware of the importance of context. If you wish to object to my statements, then perhaps you should object to them in the context in which they are presented, rather than picking out the particular sound-bites that can be spun into arguable statements.
Very well. You accuse me of taking a statement you made out of context; however the statement I cited is all you said on the matter. There was nothing else to take in context with.
The poster you were replying to asked if the judge could rearrange things to take action before congress passes the bill. You replied that a judge can't arbitrarily reschedule. I disagreed.
Federal judges have wide latitude regarding their calendars. A judge can:
a) issue a ruling on an issue that has been presented to him when he so chooses; this could be the day after a party files a response to the motion he's ruling on, or a year.
b) reschedule hearings on his own initiative.
c) in some cases issue sua sponte orders--in other words, rule on things that neither side has even asked for, including issuing an injunction.
In sum, you don't know what you're talking about, but thank you for the gratuitous insult aimed at my profession.
certainly Starship Troopers (pre-teen is not too young to be exposed to controversial political topics, imo)
Ehhh...I'm sort of on the fence about that. Kids read things less critically than adults; maybe it would be a good idea to give the kids Starship Troopers, then the Forever War. Or even Bill the Galactic Hero makes a nice antidote to Heinlein's philosophy.
When they read you your rights. If they're talking to you, and elicit incriminating statements from you without reading you your Miranda rights, those statements can (and should) be suppressed at trial. And the legal standard for being in police custody is whether a reasonable person thinks they have the option to leave, I believe.
Dude, are you kidding about the Martian Chronicles? Those are EXACTLY the kind of fluffy, fast-paced things that a 12 year old would like. Really, how many pages does John Carter go WITHOUT cutting somebody's head off? Each book is only about 150 pages, of which 100 are devoted to merciless slaughter, in great detail. I mean, if film had been around when Burroughs was writing, he would have invented the "bullet time" matrix effect for his stories--it's the way they're told.
Wrong Martian Chronicles. Bradbury's work was philosophical, allegorical, and in many ways surreal, and while I don't have trouble reading it I've found that even as an adult (with some graduate training in literary theory) it takes some effort to appreciate the nuances. Not a work for kids, though I think his Fahrenheit 451 should be required reading for someone who's just finding out about real literature.
The man believed he could con everyone. He forgot that even the most brilliant people make mistakes, as well as that his own perspective may be untrustworthy.
He's also probably not nearly as intelligent as he thinks he is. He took 13 years to get his B.S., and his main claim to fame is writing a bad filesystem.
Just make sure that when you ask her out, you promise you won't murder her in the car and then bury her body in the bush. That should put aside any doubts she has about you.
Actually, yes you would be charged. For manslaughter if the peanuts killed the person.
That's not how the law works. Under the Model Penal Code manslaughter is:
210.3. Manslaughter.
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when:
(a) it is committed recklessly; or
(b) a homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.
(2) Manslaughter is a felony of the second degree.
In order to be charged in your murder, the prosecutor would have to prove that I acted recklessly (or with extreme mental or emotional disturbance). Choosing ingredients for a soup would probably not count as "reckless" (unless I added arsenic).
As has been pointed out previously, the language about "furtherance of some tortious act" is in the "punishment" section of the law. It's a factor to be considered in how severely the crime is punished, but it's not listed as an element of the crime itself.
No, it's not, it's a required element. Observe the numbering scheme; each arabic numeral enumerates a it's an element of the crime. Following the actual grammar the relevant violation would be "(a) Whoever...(5)(a)(ii)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; (iii)...and...by [that conduct] caused...(iii) physical injury to any person...shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section." Subsection (c) is the punishment section.
Sure it makes sense. I'm not arguing that there is no way she should be prosecuted for the harassment, just that prosecuting her for using a pseudonym is bad (I'm not real sure I think it should be illegal to supply false information to a free service. There is no good reason for the state to bear the burden of making sure information is true in such an interaction).
But the prosecution is based not on that, but on the "unauthorized use" of a computer in order to cause physical harm. In this case the unauthorized use was the fake name she gave when she signed up (not exactly a pseudonym; myspace lets you create one, but this woman claimed the pseudonym was her real name too). In another case it might be unauthorized use via hacking, in which case the crime wouldn't be just for "hacking," but rather for hacking in order to cause physical harm.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, tell me how, if the fairness doctrine is to "equalize" time for viewpoints on the airwaves, that it is NOT DEVISED to censor many conservative viewpoints? And also, who determines what content is conservative and what content is liberal?
The Fairness Doctrine was ended in 1987. What does the current makeup of radio shows, more than 20 years later, have to do with the goals of the Fairness Doctrine?
Thats strong language considering you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. How about reading some history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine and never speaking again?
And here comes another another semiliterate. The same damn article you point me to explains that the Fairness Doctrine was created to target communism. Hmmmm...tell me again that it was created to target conservative viewpoints.
I've also seen a couple of replies here that think it makes a difference that these proposed rules are talking about Congress and not the general public. Doesn't matter. The Constitution protects the rights of Congresscritters to speak in public too.
If you've read the replies to the story, how on earth did you miss the countless ones explaining that TFA is completely lying about the issue, the blogger who wrote TFA is a liar, and that nobody is trying to censor anyone?
I wonder how the Founders would have reacted to such proposed restrictions on their conduct.
The Founders would have most likely read the letter you're criticizing before actually criticizing it.
Also, if you read the PDF of the letter mentioned, it is about technical limitations of U.S. government support for internet access. The rules proposed seem very sensible. The letter says NOTHING about Nancy Pelosi.
The author of the blog is apparently a factually-challenged right-wing nutjob whose reading comprehension places him or her at, generously, a 2nd grade reading level.
Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly stupid that it defies belief they have the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog. The Fairness Doctrine applied to both liberal and conservative viewpoints, and anyone who says differently is a liar.
Secondly, even a cursory review of the letter disproves the blogger's rant. The letter itself states that the recommendations do not change any of the rules governing members of congress in their official communications.
Why do right-wing bloggers tend to be so stupid? I mean, stupidity isn't restricted to any one side of the ideological spectrum, but for some reason on the internet the right-wing fruitcakes like the blogger in question exhibit such profound stupidity that it makes you wonder how they function in day-to-day life. I mean, you'd think their mental deficiency would result in them blowing themselves up or poisoning themselves, or getting run over by a train or something.
Using that metric, neither are the C64 and the Amiga?
Huh? The C64 was big in the US, the Amiga significantly less so.
It's not an issue of difficulty, it's an issue of disturbing scenes and adult elements in it.
You shouldn't assume any of the views espoused by characters in Starship Troopers to be a faithful representation of Heinlein's philosophy. (Perhaps you should try to read more critically?)
Heinlein was not shy about sharing his philosophy outside his novels. Some of the ideas espoused in Starship Troopers he probably didn't really believe, but there was plenty that he did, as he did give his opinion on things outside his fiction. If you can't follow the simple idea that fiction authors sometimes (gasp!) use their fiction books as vehicles for their ideology, then you're a simpleton.
Legend? Maybe in the UK, but neither Broken Sword nor Beneath a Steel Sky made that big a splash in the US.
so now they need a law, but the constitution says you cant pass laws retroactively so I'm sure the retroactive immunity clause could be challenged in court too,
Unfortunately, you can pass laws retroactively; you just can't pass laws that criminalize past behavior. Doing the reverse is perfectly legal.
Then, as a lawyer, you are aware of the importance of context. If you wish to object to my statements, then perhaps you should object to them in the context in which they are presented, rather than picking out the particular sound-bites that can be spun into arguable statements.
Very well. You accuse me of taking a statement you made out of context; however the statement I cited is all you said on the matter. There was nothing else to take in context with.
The poster you were replying to asked if the judge could rearrange things to take action before congress passes the bill. You replied that a judge can't arbitrarily reschedule. I disagreed.
Federal judges have wide latitude regarding their calendars. A judge can:
a) issue a ruling on an issue that has been presented to him when he so chooses; this could be the day after a party files a response to the motion he's ruling on, or a year.
b) reschedule hearings on his own initiative.
c) in some cases issue sua sponte orders--in other words, rule on things that neither side has even asked for, including issuing an injunction.
In sum, you don't know what you're talking about, but thank you for the gratuitous insult aimed at my profession.
certainly Starship Troopers (pre-teen is not too young to be exposed to controversial political topics, imo)
Ehhh...I'm sort of on the fence about that. Kids read things less critically than adults; maybe it would be a good idea to give the kids Starship Troopers, then the Forever War. Or even Bill the Galactic Hero makes a nice antidote to Heinlein's philosophy.
How do you know when you're a suspect?
When they read you your rights. If they're talking to you, and elicit incriminating statements from you without reading you your Miranda rights, those statements can (and should) be suppressed at trial. And the legal standard for being in police custody is whether a reasonable person thinks they have the option to leave, I believe.
I think Dune is definitely something that should wait till you're a bit older.
Dude, are you kidding about the Martian Chronicles? Those are EXACTLY the kind of fluffy, fast-paced things that a 12 year old would like. Really, how many pages does John Carter go WITHOUT cutting somebody's head off? Each book is only about 150 pages, of which 100 are devoted to merciless slaughter, in great detail. I mean, if film had been around when Burroughs was writing, he would have invented the "bullet time" matrix effect for his stories--it's the way they're told.
Wrong Martian Chronicles. Bradbury's work was philosophical, allegorical, and in many ways surreal, and while I don't have trouble reading it I've found that even as an adult (with some graduate training in literary theory) it takes some effort to appreciate the nuances. Not a work for kids, though I think his Fahrenheit 451 should be required reading for someone who's just finding out about real literature.
Anne McCaffrey is definitely on the top list, along with David Eddings.
Wow, both of those authors are pretty bad. Though I admit I liked Eddings when I was a child. Can't stand his stuff now though.
The man believed he could con everyone. He forgot that even the most brilliant people make mistakes, as well as that his own perspective may be untrustworthy.
He's also probably not nearly as intelligent as he thinks he is. He took 13 years to get his B.S., and his main claim to fame is writing a bad filesystem.
Just make sure that when you ask her out, you promise you won't murder her in the car and then bury her body in the bush. That should put aside any doubts she has about you.
Damn it, stop stealing my best pick-up lines!
I don't know, I can't trust 12 people to convict after Phil Spector got off.
Spector didn't get off, a mistrial was declared. He'll be going to trial again.
Reiser was convicted because he was (a) an asshole (b) not famous (c) not rich (d) white.
Yes, that justice system, always trying to keep the white man down.
Obviously, you have never seen Freedom Downtime.
Mitnick's case wasn't actually as black and white as the 2600 guys or the people here would have you believe.
Wasn't it more a matter of reasonable doubt?
Ok, new question: all those people who insisted that Nina had to be back in Russia, do you all admit you were wrong?
That's not how the law works. Under the Model Penal Code manslaughter is:
In order to be charged in your murder, the prosecutor would have to prove that I acted recklessly (or with extreme mental or emotional disturbance). Choosing ingredients for a soup would probably not count as "reckless" (unless I added arsenic).
As has been pointed out previously, the language about "furtherance of some tortious act" is in the "punishment" section of the law. It's a factor to be considered in how severely the crime is punished, but it's not listed as an element of the crime itself.
No, it's not, it's a required element. Observe the numbering scheme; each arabic numeral enumerates a it's an element of the crime. Following the actual grammar the relevant violation would be "(a) Whoever...(5)(a)(ii)intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; (iii)...and...by [that conduct] caused...(iii) physical injury to any person...shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section." Subsection (c) is the punishment section.
Sure it makes sense. I'm not arguing that there is no way she should be prosecuted for the harassment, just that prosecuting her for using a pseudonym is bad (I'm not real sure I think it should be illegal to supply false information to a free service. There is no good reason for the state to bear the burden of making sure information is true in such an interaction).
But the prosecution is based not on that, but on the "unauthorized use" of a computer in order to cause physical harm. In this case the unauthorized use was the fake name she gave when she signed up (not exactly a pseudonym; myspace lets you create one, but this woman claimed the pseudonym was her real name too). In another case it might be unauthorized use via hacking, in which case the crime wouldn't be just for "hacking," but rather for hacking in order to cause physical harm.