But wait a minute, I thought the great thing about the Internet was that it provided a way for the masses to communicate, seek out information, and disseminate information amongst each other.
Yes, you have it, let's go back to the time when only the smartest and richest had access to information, and the rest will just have to believe what we tell them.
Quiz time. Define "theory" as used in the scientific community.
Stupid lame-ness filter. I mean really, who doesn't think that I can make a decent post in that few of characters. I'll show you some lame-ness. Okay, it's time to just ramble on about nothing, apparently this lame-ness filter has it in for me, considering the first 5 sentences weren't enough for it.
If you have time, read the entire opinion (although you might skip over a lot of the facts, it can drag...)
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, it appears that the Sticker 1s impacting science instruction on evolution Some students have pointed to the language an the Sticker to support arguments that evolution does not exist (McCoy Triad Test) In addition, Dr McCoy testified that the Board's misuse of the word "theory" in the Sticker causes "confusion" in his science class and consequently requires him to spend significantly more time trying to distinguish "fact" and "theory" for his students (Id ) Dr. McCoy stated that some of his students translate the Sticker to skate that evolution is "lust" a theory, which he believes has the effect of diminishing the status of evolution among all other theories (Id )"
Actually "unreasonable noise," is pretty much objective. You get a jury to determine whether or not the amount of noise was that which a reasonable person would not tolerate. It's as objective as most things in a courtroom can be.
"Abusive of obscene language," has likely been narrowly construed by the New York courts. If I didn't have so much to do for class tomorrow, I might bother finding more information for you.
The "dictionary" is rarely a controlling factor in determining the meaning of a statute.
The illegal thing that they did was causing a public disturbance; my point was with respect to the public's reaction that they are victims and what they did should be protected by the First Amendment.
However, take the same situation and trade "lawyer jokes" with "racist jokes," and more people would be willing to see how it could cause a disturbance. It's like getting on a bus and proceeding to tell everyone how bus drivers are all scum. You're not going to have a nice ride after that, and nor is anyone else.
The lawyer that complained didn't grant an arrest warrant, nor did he personally arrest the two. A judge or a police officer had to do that. I can go to the police and complain about you being an idiot, but they won't arrest you unless they feel it is necessary.
Have they even been formally indicted yet? I wouldn't be surprised to see the prosecutor drop the case or bring in a grand jury knowing they'll turn it down.
But, if you're in a crowd of people that are trying to get into a building and by repeatedly calling Bob an "asshole" and "drooling idiot" you are causing unrest and a potentially dangerous situation for Bob, then yes you can be arrested.
The first one is humorous; of course the reality is that most lawyers have an IQ in the same range as doctors; 120-130 or so.
Re:It happens every day
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 1
Iraq Body Count keeps a detailed record of all news reports regarding civilian deaths in Iraq and attempts to synthesize all of the information from several different sources.
They currently have the total between 15,289 and 17,503.
Your original post was somewhat misleading then. There are many people who seem to prefer to fault Christianity as opposed to radical Christians for such things, and from your comment you seemed to fall into that category.
Attacking Christianity itself for the actions of a few loud mouthed people is akin to faulting Islam for terrorism done in its name.
By the way, was watching PBS late at night the other day, and Woodrow Wilson claimed (similarly to George W. Bush) that he felt it was God's will that he be president and that God had made it so. As a Christian, of course, the argument could be made that nothing happens on Earth that isn't somehow tied to God; however, to claim that He gave you the presidency is nothing short of claiming a divine right to rule, something which is very dangerous in this country.
Actually, the Constitution is to be interpretted "in the original intent of its authors," without necessarily any regard to what "plain english" might have been at the time.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
No mention of individuals; just Authors and Inventors.
A better comparison would be population density. Iceland is actually very sparse, about 3 people per square kilometer. The United States has about 31 people per square kilometer.
So, I find it great that even a sparse population is able to make such strides; since you would think it would be a lot easier in a place where all your people are packed together than spread out all over the place. Think Alaska vs. New York.
You do realize that Christianity exists without needing to celebrate Easter, Christmas, or any other religious holiday? Most people consider these to be times of reflection, not some ritual that must be performed to earn salvation.
That it borrows from paganism is not surprising at all. In many respects, this was done as a way to ease conversion. A great way to teach someone about something new is to relate it to something they already know.
The article you give is just one big assumption, and doesn't give any good reason for why there are similarities; the author just throws out his opinion and mixes it with some authority, "this was done to deceive," but provides no basis for that claim.
Honestly, if you want to attack Christianity, pick something better than its method of celebration of important events.
Other than the BMV (and I can't figure out why they need your SSN), most of the places that have it are because they need to report tax information about you. You don't have to give it to anyone else. Some places will get annoyed with your request to have a special identification number, but they will accomodate you. My undergrad used to use SSNs for identification, but you could always request a different ID number at any time.
If the government would work on getting rid of all that PORK in the budget instead of wasting time on fruitless efforts like getting rid of SPAM we'd be a lot better off.
Well, but we know that the "editors" here don't "edit" They post submissions "as is." The only "edit"ing that they do is in decided what to post to what page.
Slashdot Mirror
But wait a minute, I thought the great thing about the Internet was that it provided a way for the masses to communicate, seek out information, and disseminate information amongst each other.
Yes, you have it, let's go back to the time when only the smartest and richest had access to information, and the rest will just have to believe what we tell them.
So they'll give up before they ever get to the point of setting up an Internet connection? =]
6 - Unless you know that the message you are sending is encrypted, assume that you are saying it in a public forum for all to hear.
Okay, fine, what about gays and lesbians? (Yes, I know there are arguments about whether or not it is a choice).
What about Christians, Muslism, Buddhists? Is it okay to do the same to them? After all they chose their religion (for the most part).
What part of the midwest are you from? In Indiana and Ohio it is the conservatives that want vouchers for their schools.
It's one of the few economic related issues you'll see liberarians and liberals agreeing on.
Also, why would a conservative want the federal government getting involved in education? That seems to be about as anti-federalist you can get.
Quiz time. Define "theory" as used in the scientific community.
Stupid lame-ness filter. I mean really, who doesn't think that I can make a decent post in that few of characters. I'll show you some lame-ness. Okay, it's time to just ramble on about nothing, apparently this lame-ness filter has it in for me, considering the first 5 sentences weren't enough for it.
If you have time, read the entire opinion (although you might skip over a lot of the facts, it can drag...)
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, it appears that the Sticker 1s impacting science
instruction on evolution Some students have pointed to the language an the Sticker
to support arguments that evolution does not exist (McCoy Triad Test) In addition,
Dr McCoy testified that the Board's misuse of the word "theory" in the Sticker
causes "confusion" in his science class and consequently requires him to spend
significantly more time trying to distinguish "fact" and "theory" for his students
(Id ) Dr. McCoy stated that some of his students translate the Sticker to skate that
evolution is "lust" a theory, which he believes has the effect of diminishing the
status of evolution among all other theories (Id )"
Actually "unreasonable noise," is pretty much objective. You get a jury to determine whether or not the amount of noise was that which a reasonable person would not tolerate. It's as objective as most things in a courtroom can be.
"Abusive of obscene language," has likely been narrowly construed by the New York courts. If I didn't have so much to do for class tomorrow, I might bother finding more information for you.
The "dictionary" is rarely a controlling factor in determining the meaning of a statute.
From New York Penal Law:
"A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
Disorderly conduct is a violation."
So, I think #3 pretty clearly applies to them, but I haven't taken the time to research any court decisions regarding the application of that section.
The illegal thing that they did was causing a public disturbance; my point was with respect to the public's reaction that they are victims and what they did should be protected by the First Amendment.
However, take the same situation and trade "lawyer jokes" with "racist jokes," and more people would be willing to see how it could cause a disturbance. It's like getting on a bus and proceeding to tell everyone how bus drivers are all scum. You're not going to have a nice ride after that, and nor is anyone else.
The lawyer that complained didn't grant an arrest warrant, nor did he personally arrest the two. A judge or a police officer had to do that. I can go to the police and complain about you being an idiot, but they won't arrest you unless they feel it is necessary.
Have they even been formally indicted yet? I wouldn't be surprised to see the prosecutor drop the case or bring in a grand jury knowing they'll turn it down.
But, if you're in a crowd of people that are trying to get into a building and by repeatedly calling Bob an "asshole" and "drooling idiot" you are causing unrest and a potentially dangerous situation for Bob, then yes you can be arrested.
I saw the 2 guys and their lawyer
You would think they would defend themselves...
Would the public reaction be different if they were telling racially insensitive jokes repeatedly in front of a black person?
The first one is humorous; of course the reality is that most lawyers have an IQ in the same range as doctors; 120-130 or so.
Iraq Body Count keeps a detailed record of all news reports regarding civilian deaths in Iraq and attempts to synthesize all of the information from several different sources.
They currently have the total between 15,289 and 17,503.
Of course 70% of statistics are indeed made up.
So are 70% of quotations.
Your original post was somewhat misleading then. There are many people who seem to prefer to fault Christianity as opposed to radical Christians for such things, and from your comment you seemed to fall into that category.
Attacking Christianity itself for the actions of a few loud mouthed people is akin to faulting Islam for terrorism done in its name.
By the way, was watching PBS late at night the other day, and Woodrow Wilson claimed (similarly to George W. Bush) that he felt it was God's will that he be president and that God had made it so. As a Christian, of course, the argument could be made that nothing happens on Earth that isn't somehow tied to God; however, to claim that He gave you the presidency is nothing short of claiming a divine right to rule, something which is very dangerous in this country.
Actually, the Constitution is to be interpretted "in the original intent of its authors," without necessarily any regard to what "plain english" might have been at the time.
Read the dictionary section of the US Code.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
No mention of individuals; just Authors and Inventors.
A better comparison would be population density. Iceland is actually very sparse, about 3 people per square kilometer. The United States has about 31 people per square kilometer.
So, I find it great that even a sparse population is able to make such strides; since you would think it would be a lot easier in a place where all your people are packed together than spread out all over the place. Think Alaska vs. New York.
You do realize that Christianity exists without needing to celebrate Easter, Christmas, or any other religious holiday? Most people consider these to be times of reflection, not some ritual that must be performed to earn salvation.
That it borrows from paganism is not surprising at all. In many respects, this was done as a way to ease conversion. A great way to teach someone about something new is to relate it to something they already know.
The article you give is just one big assumption, and doesn't give any good reason for why there are similarities; the author just throws out his opinion and mixes it with some authority, "this was done to deceive," but provides no basis for that claim.
Honestly, if you want to attack Christianity, pick something better than its method of celebration of important events.
Other than the BMV (and I can't figure out why they need your SSN), most of the places that have it are because they need to report tax information about you. You don't have to give it to anyone else. Some places will get annoyed with your request to have a special identification number, but they will accomodate you. My undergrad used to use SSNs for identification, but you could always request a different ID number at any time.
If the government would work on getting rid of all that PORK in the budget instead of wasting time on fruitless efforts like getting rid of SPAM we'd be a lot better off.
Well, but we know that the "editors" here don't "edit" They post submissions "as is." The only "edit"ing that they do is in decided what to post to what page.