Why don't you take a gander at their history of dumping anything that doesn't pan out in their Excel 'what-if' analyses? And I haven't fucked any morons... Wanna be the first?
Rand Paul? Please... the guy's a complete fruitcake. Right now the numbers say it will be Jeb vs. Hillary. Both have the 'creds' where they are needed most. But as usual, it's best to see who can move the most money. That will decide who wins.
The law has become irrelevant, applies only to people who can't buy their way out. I'm telling you that you don't need to be a chicken to recognize an egg.
It's more than just profit. Copyright greases the wheels of the propaganda machine by controlling who has access to what. Without copyright the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Control is vital.
Political expediency.... doesn't make the judges right, just corrupt. I read the law as written, and this one couldn't be more exact in its wording.
Besides, this is an export issue, not just a speech issue.
Doesn't matter. It is still in violation of a very specifically spelled out law.
It could be argued that such rules derive from the references to treason in the constitution, which are generally considered to trump the bill of rights.
Well shit, just rip the damn thing up then if they can override it and call it 'national security'. A government in noncompliance has no right to exist, but if we don't vote the violators out, then we deserve what we get.
It does not matter what law's intentions are. If it puts any restriction on speech, then it is in violation, despite what the rubber stamping judges have done over the years. Legally limiting speech in the USA requires another amendment to the constitution, not just tacking on 'interpretations' on the existing law, which I repeat, is quite specific, unlike the 4th, with the weasel word 'unreasonable'.
In that case, ITAR is a clear violation of the first amendment. And for your edification, I shall repeat that if you want to restrict speech in the USA, you must first modify or repeal the amendment, if you expect people to respect the law. Otherwise all bets are off.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you take a gander at their history of dumping anything that doesn't pan out in their Excel 'what-if' analyses? And I haven't fucked any morons... Wanna be the first?
It's important to keep people ignorant to increase and concentrate that power.
Until Google decides to pull the plug. Beware!
I wish the mechanic would get as excited when he has to put some freon into my A/C...
Ah, see? I can tell you're a republican. Hurricanes are a result of low barometric pressure...
Any clues?
Yes, perform all circumvention and distribution anonymously.
yeah, really... HDMI cables ?
Rand Paul? Please... the guy's a complete fruitcake. Right now the numbers say it will be Jeb vs. Hillary. Both have the 'creds' where they are needed most. But as usual, it's best to see who can move the most money. That will decide who wins.
As long as it doesn't eliminate the monopoly, it has a good chance, and McCain will have a chance at 2016...
Writing laws to protect the entertainment industry? What kind of crap is this? Just take away their monopoly protections, and problem solved.
The law has become irrelevant, applies only to people who can't buy their way out. I'm telling you that you don't need to be a chicken to recognize an egg.
It's more than just profit. Copyright greases the wheels of the propaganda machine by controlling who has access to what. Without copyright the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Control is vital.
...the ATM should have flagged that amount as suspicious and refused to complete the transaction.
Can that be done with Windows 98?
Sounds like a good encryption scheme. Even two million slashdotters can't break the code.
200+ years of court cases disagree.
Political expediency.... doesn't make the judges right, just corrupt. I read the law as written, and this one couldn't be more exact in its wording.
Besides, this is an export issue, not just a speech issue.
Doesn't matter. It is still in violation of a very specifically spelled out law.
It could be argued that such rules derive from the references to treason in the constitution, which are generally considered to trump the bill of rights.
Well shit, just rip the damn thing up then if they can override it and call it 'national security'. A government in noncompliance has no right to exist, but if we don't vote the violators out, then we deserve what we get.
It does not matter what law's intentions are. If it puts any restriction on speech, then it is in violation, despite what the rubber stamping judges have done over the years. Legally limiting speech in the USA requires another amendment to the constitution, not just tacking on 'interpretations' on the existing law, which I repeat, is quite specific, unlike the 4th, with the weasel word 'unreasonable'.
Stanley Ann Dunham had a baby
Otherwise we'll have abandoned Freedom of Speech...
Never really had it, but abandonment became official in 1798
...they are in no hurry to pull them apart.
Not as long as they can make a sale.
I know you did, because apparently we all did.
Yeah, it could be said that failure to take up arms against tyranny is tantamount to consent..
Information was taken down at the demands of the government. That is a first amendment violation.
...scroll down to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases....
It's a bullshit 'test'. The amendment makes no such allowances. To make it so requires another amendment to the constitution itself.
The first amendment does not allow for any exemptions. It explicitly states "no law".
In that case, ITAR is a clear violation of the first amendment. And for your edification, I shall repeat that if you want to restrict speech in the USA, you must first modify or repeal the amendment, if you expect people to respect the law. Otherwise all bets are off.
Glad to see that the first amendment is so inviolable...