That gives freedom of speech, not freedom of showing images.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". To claim that this does not extend to pictures is absurd.
Furthermore, the FCC already regulates what is said on broadcast radio, something that is blatantly unconstitutional.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You can look after your own health care. You don't need the government to do that for you. (Okay, infectious diseases are an exception, but make up a small fraction of overall health care expenses. Keep the CDC and privatise everything else.)
The same goes for education. And if you stopped demanding that the government pay your bills for you, that debt wouldn't exist.
But the government is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution from passing laws restricting gun ownership.
And the reason for that is so that if it ever becomes necessary, the people can shoot their leaders.
Something also worth considering is that, baring any huge catastrophes, simple demographics tell us that the Earth population will reach 12 billion people in our lifetime, even if the average number of children per women fall to the low number of Japan and Europe and life expectancy stay put. The more realistic scenarios top around 20 billion people.
I hope you have a cite for that, because it conflicts with all the recent projections I've seen. Wikipedia has a good summary; the global growth rate has been falling for the past forty years, and population is expected to peak at between 10 and 11 billion before it starts to decline again.
This is exactly correct, and exposes the huge problem with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other such documents.
The Constitution does not say that you have the right to freedom of speech. Rather, it recognises this right as innate, and explicitly forbids Congress from passing laws that abridge this right.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't say "unless it's been paid for". It says "Congress shall make no law".
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What's so frickin' hard about this? Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. No law means no law.
The entire argument here is "ZOMG the exit polls are different to the votes!"
They have no actual evidence of anything whatsoever.
Having said that, I agree with everyone on the problems with voting machines - just not that they have been systematically rigged. Ditch them and go with paper ballots. Ditch all the voting machines, not just the Diebold ones. A piece of paper and a pencil. That's all you need.
Do you want the government controlling what's said on radio and TV?
No?
Good. Then the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea.
I'm with Penn Jillette on this: A good idea automatically becomes a bad idea when it's done by the government. And this wasn't a good idea to start with.
there were plenty of proportionally-spaced typewriters back then. that isn't to say that one was used on the document, but the possibility exists.
No.
There were very few proportionally-spaced typewriters back then. They were huge, expensive, prone to mechanical failure, and used exclusively for typesetting. They were not used by the National Guard for producing everyday memos.
But that's beside the point. Even if one of those typewriters somehow ended up in a TANG office, it simply could not have produced the memo as presented. They were proportionally spaced, but that's it, but lacked any of the more advanced typographic features we expect today, and that were present in the document.
And here's the kicker: Typing the text of the memo into Microsoft Word with the default settings produces exactly the same output. That's how the famous blinking GIF that overlays the two was produced. It's a perfect match.
The memo was forged, and it was done using Microsoft Word.
I've been listening to the Introductory Psychology lectures, and they're wonderful. But for the majority of courses, all that's available is lecture notes, and sometimes not even that.
It's a great thing that MIT are doing, but even so, the execution is a little disappointing.
The problem with newspapers, is that among those of us with brains, most newspapers have no credibility, whatsoever. Newspapers are corporations. Sure, you can make money from it, but... Well, actually, most newspapers are bleeding cash and subscribers and have been for the past decade.
I agree with everything you said except for the last part. Blogging and "mainstream" media won't merge, exactly.
Blogging itself doesn't matter. What matters is the internet. Every form of information distribution will be absorbed by the iInternet, and soon. Newspapers, TV, radio, books, magazines, telephones, everything.
That's what the internet does. As soon as you plug something into the internet, it becomes part of the internet. And you can't remain unconnected and compete.
Blogging has made a lot of noise, but it's really just a blip. All a blog is is one way to organise a web site, and web sites are just one way to distribute information across the internet. If you're looking to be an information provider, and you're not looking at the internet, the you're looking at unemployment five years from now.
Many syndicated columnists are also snarky, self-righteous and pretentious. What we have learned over the last five years is that having editors, deadlines and a real job generally doesn't make the slightest difference.
What matters is whether you are any good. You also have to be prepared to work for years before you have any real success - whether you are on paper or online.
Newspapers as they are now are in a death spiral; the online model just works better for news, but newspapers have no particular advantage there over anyone else. They pull most of their stories from the wire feeds, and anyone can do that. Anyone can do analysis and commentary too. Again, what matters is whether you are any good.
I predict the government will lose more data this way than when storing data unencrypted. And, when they lose it this way, they won't be able to get it back. At least when they lose a stolen laptop and get it back, they usually still get their data.
The data isn't supposed to be on the laptops in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, the FCC already regulates what is said on broadcast radio, something that is blatantly unconstitutional.
Has no-one in Congress read the Bill of Rights?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The weapons are more important.
You can look after your own health care. You don't need the government to do that for you. (Okay, infectious diseases are an exception, but make up a small fraction of overall health care expenses. Keep the CDC and privatise everything else.)
The same goes for education. And if you stopped demanding that the government pay your bills for you, that debt wouldn't exist.
But the government is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution from passing laws restricting gun ownership.
And the reason for that is so that if it ever becomes necessary, the people can shoot their leaders.
Yes, the reaction by Boston authorities was absurdly overblown. But it was a retarded idea to start with.
Ideally, this resignation should by matched by one at a similar level in Boston, but I don't see that happening.
Please mark entire thread -5 Stupid.
Thanks!
This is exactly correct, and exposes the huge problem with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other such documents.
The Constitution does not say that you have the right to freedom of speech. Rather, it recognises this right as innate, and explicitly forbids Congress from passing laws that abridge this right.
Which has never stopped them, unfortunately.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What's so frickin' hard about this? Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. No law means no law.
And the Democrats won the mid-terms. Get over it.
The entire argument here is "ZOMG the exit polls are different to the votes!"
They have no actual evidence of anything whatsoever.
Having said that, I agree with everyone on the problems with voting machines - just not that they have been systematically rigged. Ditch them and go with paper ballots. Ditch all the voting machines, not just the Diebold ones. A piece of paper and a pencil. That's all you need.
Do you want the government controlling what's said on radio and TV?
No?
Good. Then the Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea.
I'm with Penn Jillette on this: A good idea automatically becomes a bad idea when it's done by the government. And this wasn't a good idea to start with.
There were very few proportionally-spaced typewriters back then. They were huge, expensive, prone to mechanical failure, and used exclusively for typesetting. They were not used by the National Guard for producing everyday memos.
But that's beside the point. Even if one of those typewriters somehow ended up in a TANG office, it simply could not have produced the memo as presented. They were proportionally spaced, but that's it, but lacked any of the more advanced typographic features we expect today, and that were present in the document.
And here's the kicker: Typing the text of the memo into Microsoft Word with the default settings produces exactly the same output. That's how the famous blinking GIF that overlays the two was produced. It's a perfect match.
The memo was forged, and it was done using Microsoft Word.
I've been listening to the Introductory Psychology lectures, and they're wonderful. But for the majority of courses, all that's available is lecture notes, and sometimes not even that.
It's a great thing that MIT are doing, but even so, the execution is a little disappointing.
Just checking - are you saying that Germany is becoming a fascist rogue state, or France? Or both?
The problem with newspapers, is that among those of us with brains, most newspapers have no credibility, whatsoever. Newspapers are corporations. Sure, you can make money from it, but... Well, actually, most newspapers are bleeding cash and subscribers and have been for the past decade.
I agree with everything you said except for the last part. Blogging and "mainstream" media won't merge, exactly.
Blogging itself doesn't matter. What matters is the internet. Every form of information distribution will be absorbed by the iInternet, and soon. Newspapers, TV, radio, books, magazines, telephones, everything.
That's what the internet does. As soon as you plug something into the internet, it becomes part of the internet. And you can't remain unconnected and compete.
Blogging has made a lot of noise, but it's really just a blip. All a blog is is one way to organise a web site, and web sites are just one way to distribute information across the internet. If you're looking to be an information provider, and you're not looking at the internet, the you're looking at unemployment five years from now.
His political views seem to veer towards the anti-Semitic lunatic isolationist Pat Buchanan league.
Alas, you are right that his views aren't unique to any single party.
Many syndicated columnists are also snarky, self-righteous and pretentious. What we have learned over the last five years is that having editors, deadlines and a real job generally doesn't make the slightest difference.
What matters is whether you are any good. You also have to be prepared to work for years before you have any real success - whether you are on paper or online.
Newspapers as they are now are in a death spiral; the online model just works better for news, but newspapers have no particular advantage there over anyone else. They pull most of their stories from the wire feeds, and anyone can do that. Anyone can do analysis and commentary too. Again, what matters is whether you are any good.
And they never found the body...
You are linking to a site that says "math should be only one tool among many in the economist's toolbox".
So what new non-mathematical economics are these... people... proposing?
Not funny at all to thousands of working linguists who believe that Chomsky has set the field back by decades.
Not funny when you consider that Chomsky's so-called "Universal Grammar" looks just like English.
Not funny when you consider that Chomsky's reputation as a thinker comes entirely from his work in linguistics, when that work is, at best, junk.