You will always find the other MP3 players at less than MSRP and you will never be able to purchase the iPod at anything other than MSRP. Barring farfegnugen freebies, of course. iPod minis are purely fashionable.
There are only two other players that have the capacity of the miniPod, so price comparisons are still plenty relevant. Even if some of those flashed players halfed their price in responce, you'd still have 4 times the storage for the money with the Mini.
And as the other poster said: either put up or STFU about these supposed markdowns on the other players.
That's not relevant. You're focusing on an irrelevant aspect.
If you made a typo and meant to say 'most relevant by far' then yes, you would be correct. If not, then you still had a few too many apples off the Frikkin Moron tree.
It would be like saying that shoplifting isn't stealing because stealing involves taking something from a person and shoplifting is taking something from a store. Because a store isn't a person, shoplifting isn't stealing.
What are you, majoring in Missing the Point at Retard Community College? You seem to be one of those inbreds who think that everything is 'theft' if it involves ownership of something and breaking a law. Tell me dear AC, why isn't it theft if I burn down your house? I've deprived you of worldly goods and possessions...you no longer have your house. Why isn't that theft? Because I burned down your house and *nobody* has it you moron! Thats why its called arson. Thats why we have some 700,000 words in the English language: so we have different names for different things that have nothing in common. Theft, arson. Theft, copyright infringment. Have your speech therapist help you with the big words if need be.
Lets try to break this down into an analogy your primitive mind can understand. If I break into your house and remove all your DVD's and CD's, that is theft because I've taken something from your possession and put it in mine. Now, lets say that rather than removing all your CD's and DVD's, I came in with my laptop and copied them all to disk rather than taking them out of your apartment. Now, how is that stealing from anybody? Sure, trespassing was still committed, but you still have all your CD's and DVD's. I didn't steal anything from you as you still have all your possessions. Did I steal anything from the studios? Of course not, as those were *your* DVD's and CD's, not the studios.
What did happen to the studios is that their right of control of distribution was violated. Rights that are set up in the Constitution. Rights that grant creators time limited, exclusive control over their works, with the exception of fair use rights. Rights that when infringed, means that copyright infringment has taken place.
Heh. Because the RIAA isn't the government. Let's do Government 101 here, okay? When a person or group conducts legal action against another person or group, that's called a civil action. When the government conducts legal action, it's a criminal action. Only the government has the authority to conduct criminal actions. That's how our legal system works.
Wow. Okay, for the really 'special' people in the audience (you) I'll spell this out. If something is stolen from you, you report it to the police and press charges. How many charges of theft have been pressed by the RIAA? A big fat fucking zero. If you want to split hairs over who literally does the prosecuting, go look at the number of people charged with theft by the government for committing copyright infringment. The number? Once again, a big fat fucking zero. The amount of money the RIAA has reported stolen (sound bytes aside)? A big fat fucking zero.
I repeat: the RIAA has the most vested interest, of anyone, of stomping out copyright infringment online. If infringment is actually theft, then why isn't the RIAA pressing charges/suing for it, since theft is a much more serious charge than copyright infringment? BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS YOU FUCKTARD.
Why hasn't the government prosecuted those who download music? Two reasons. First, because they have limited resources and much bigger fish to fry.
Yeah, they've gotta send FBI agents on raids on people suspected of getting the Half Life 2 source code. Yup, much bigger fish to fry.
Second, because it's basically impossible to build a case against a downloader without violating the rules of evidence. It's just more effective to pursue those criminals through the civil system. It's a pragmati
Copyright infringement is a form of stealing. Just like embezzlement, fraud, shoplifting, burglary, robbery, and pickpocketing are all forms of stealing.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. With all those above mentioned things, I remove something from your possession so its in mine and you no longer have it. With copyright infringment, I have a copy and you still have the origional.
You want proof? If this were really theft, then why isn't the RIAA prosecuting these downloaders for it? The answer is: its not theft you frikkin dumbass, never was never will be.
No, its not, never has been, never will be. If I don't remove something, putting it in my possession and removing it from yours, there is no theft. Deal with it.
Bzzzt WRONG! You are the one splitting hairs, you cockbiting fucktard. *YOU* are calling it something ITS NOT to make it sound WORSE THAN IT REALLY IS. If there is no removal of property, there is no theft. Period.
Uh, slow down there, Sparky. The fact is, there will always be a "black market" for any product, no matter what the price. That's because some people are perverted and would rather steal than pay a fair price for what they take.
Sure there will always be people like that - but the very fact that they refuse to pay for stuff makes them irrelevant to the equation. If they refuse to by songs, it doesn't matter if there's a black market or not, as the labels aren't going to see any money either way.
The fact that people are stealing
That would be copyright infringement not stealing, thank you. Which makes all that blather comparing p2p to shoplifting irrelevant. If no property is removed there is no theft, its that simple. No, I'm not splitting hairs or calling it something other than stealing to make it sound less serious, *you* are calling it something it's *not* to make it sound more serious than it really is.
If you simply provided a high quality product at a fair price over the internet, then piracy would be reduced to 10% of what it is today.
They do. It's called iTunes.
The problem is that labels woke up to late, and movie studios haven't woken up at all. Most people are aware that their time is worth something, so they aren't going to spend endless amounts of time to get something for 'free' when they could spend a tenth of the time working and buy a pristine, flawless, legal copy of their own. But the problem is that they waited too long and too many good black market means exist. Its too late to stamp out piracy completely; it wouldn't matter now if songs on iTunes were a nickel apiece, as things like Kazaa and mp3 newsgroups are too well established.
The rights of the copyright holders, obviously. They're the only ones with rights here. You certainly aren't entitled to any rights in this particular scenario, because you haven't done anything.
How ignorant can you get? Copyright in the Constitution is a social contract between society and copyright holders, intended to encourage them to create new works. Holders get artificial scarcity, but consumers have their rights as well - time shifting, fair use, and *reasonable time limits* on the length of copyrights. Congress seems to have forgotten about the last little provision there, as they keep extending it for 25 years at a time.
That's what record labels do: they fund the production process, so your music ends up sounding great on my car's six-speaker stereo system instead of sounding like two teenagers threw it together in their parents' garage.
Sure, to a certain extent you still "get what you pay for", but $200,000+ to record one album is just ridiculous.
The world would be a much quieter place without the RIAA. Music before record labels was reserved for the few who could find their way to a live performance. The few recordings that existed were scratchy and unpolished, and they cost a fortune. Get rid of the record labels, and music as you know it will cease to exist.
What, you're saying that because the music industry rose with the arrival of durable formats, means that recorded music depends on the labels? Just how stupid are you? The Grateful Dead and Phish did just fine without being slaves to the labels, and you can buy their music on cd. Hell, the aforementioned teenagers can get an eMac for $800 with a combo drive and Apple's free GarageBand software, and cut their own damn cd's.
You ship millions of units that have numerous parts, some of them mechanical, and a small percentage will fail. Its called Shit Happens. People bitch about Apple's prices the way it is, how much more would it cost for them to insure that you Will Never Ever Have A Lemon?
Details? We had to borrow books! What more details do you want? The fact is, books cost a LOT less than buildings! My school graduated 27 people in 2002... Do we REALLY need a new gym? Its not like we decided to put in an athletics program, we HAD a gym.
Means nothing. Was your old gym condemned? Deemed a fire hazard? Had too much asbestos? How about the baseball field? Does the school make enough money from tickets so that spending $45,000 once a decade make sense? What was the student/classroom ratio? 30:1? 35:1? 40:1?
And math doesn't change. There's no reason why you couldn't take a bunch of well written math books from 1910 and use them in your classrooms.
Without more details, you have no case. All you are doing is yelling 'LOOK! They spent money on something other than textbooks! Corruption!!!!'
Funding for welfare, etc, isn't designed to wipe out poverty or mitigate its effects. It's designed to perpetuate poverty
What a retarded statment to make. Say you go ahead and eliminate welfare. Whar are the corresponding slums and increased crime rate going to do for your lifestyle and property values, Captain Self-Centered?
large expansions on two school that added ZERO student capacity
So? What was the student average per class before the expansions? If you're in one of those Arkansas disctrics with 40 kids to a classroom, I would certainally hope they'd do it that way.
1) The annecdotes about "welfare queens" were mostly bullshit 2) Ok, lets go ahead and end all welfare and medicare. Then see how much selfish, self-centered conservatives like it when their property values drop and their crime rate increases.
Don't also forget the middle and lower classes make up the vast majoraty of consumers. So by being a greedy, self centered Scrooge and stomping on those lower than you is retarded, because you're stomping on your own customers.
I'm not one of those "fix our problems here first" people, as we would never explore space if we waited till all the problems were solved on earth first. However, that doesn't change the fact that we need to go about this with some responsibility. Republicans claimed they were the party of fiscal responsibility...now we have big tax cuts AND huge military spending AND increased domestic spending.
Its not that we shouldn't try for a moon base, its that the administration needs to stop is gross fiscal irresponsibility and get the budget in line before we talk about sending humans to Mars.
I have a All in Wonder Radeon, and the damned thing still refuses to capture video reliably under anything but WinME. ATI has to get my last $200 Radeon card to work long before I give them another $200.
Why subpoena? To get facts. We agree on that. However, if all the plaintiff's facts were proven true and the case still doesn't have merit, then there is no reason to bother investigating the facts. If the assertions, if proven true, were to make a reasonable case, then the case is not meritless.
If the lawsuit has already happened, then what exactly are you going to ban?
Since you have an obvious problem with this subtle distinction, I will state it again. You can ban cases where, if all the facts were proven to be as the plaintiff asserts, the case still holds no merit. This will ban only meritless lawsuits and not ban any legitimate ones.
And you have an obvious chicken and egg problem that you don't understand. You can't get the facts without a supena, and you can't get a supena without a lawsuit. If the case is meritless, either the case will be dismissed or the jury will rule in favor of the defendant. Either way the case is over, and what is the point of banning something thats already happened? The case can be dismissed with prejudice, but you don't need a law for that as judges can already do that.
And since you are obviously ignorant of what one can be sued for (like being sued for treason by a private citizen), you are obviously not a reliable source of information on what frivolous suits currently are or are not being filed.
Its your assertion, so its your job to prove it. Just ask Harold. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." As treason is probably the most serious crime you can commit, and the Consitution is very specific about it, I seriously doubt that you will have a civil trial and no federal charges.
Just because it doesn't explicitly say privacy doesn't mean the idea isn't in there. I've heard this a lot, but just how, exactly, are you going to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" WITHOUT some measure of privacy?
But the matter is well-settled by the Supreme Court, i.e., that the Bill of Rights does not attach to non-citizens outside of the territory of the United States.
SCOTUS can also be wrong. If you really are a lawyer: Hepburn v. Griswold. Nuf said. As the Consitution does not say that the government is exempt from it outside our borders, I don't see how you can make an argument that the government is exempt from it's restrictions outside of the U.S. If it is, why don't we just make the Iraqi's into slaves to rebuild the infrastructure?
Clearly, the Bush Administration did its legal research on the issue.
And I'm sure mp3.com did lots of legal research on Beam It, too.
The facts are inconsequential if there exist no set of facts that would render the plaintiff's case worthy of a judgment.
Uh huh. Except you wont have the facts until you can supena information from the other party, and you can't do that without filing a lawsuit. So, once again...YOU CAN'T BAN MERITLESS LAWSUITS WITHOUT ALSO BANNING LEGITIMATE ONES!!!!
That is your opinion. Mine differs. I happen to know multiple people that have been sued for treason, my mother included.
I call bullshit. Treason is something you get executed for, not sued.
OMG, you're right! Well, we might as well do nothing then, rather than take incremental steps to make things that much harder for people to slip through.
The problem isn't that they are trying to increase security, its that they are doing it in the most retarded, least effective way that stomps all over people's rights. Guess how much security has been increased at nuclear and chemical plants? Zero. All Al Queda has to do is steal a chlorine truck from a water treatment plant and blow it up in a large city. The gas clings to the ground and is lethal up to 20 miles away - the death toll could dwarf that of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
Anything to make us *actually* safer, instead of just pandering to a public's superficial need to *feel* safer.
Yes...I think Playboy had a nice article on the subject. Bush spends all his time stamping over people's rights, rather than increasing security where it REALLY matters. Like at nuclear power plants for example. Actually, if I were a terrorist, I'd just steal a chlorine truck from a water treatment plant and blow it up in the middle of New York city. Supposedly the stuff clings to the ground and is lethal up to 20 miles away. Do this in rush hour and the death total could dwarf the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
I have one that simply says "Creed Sucks" in big letters on the front. I have had many nice comments about it, such as "Nice shirt!" and "where did you get that shirt?" I have yet to run into a single person who dislikes it.
But there's one thats even better - it says "Even Jesus hates Creed"
Everytime someone links to the "facts"of this case it shows the same thing.The woman spilled coffee on herself and tried to hold MacDonalds responsible.
Bzzzzt...WRONG. Since you seem to be a little "slow", let me repeat myself: she did not sue and win because she dumped coffee on herself. She sued and one because McDonalds knowingly sold a dangerous product that could give people serious burns if spilled on the customer. Which would inevitably happen to a fair number of people. And there was no reason for it to happen. Is it Ford's fault if you drive your Pinto into a parked car at 10 miles an hour? Of course not. Is it Fords fault that they put in a shitty assed gas tank that starts on fire in a minor accident? Of course it is.
"Tort reform" is nothing more than a means for companies to avoid responsibility for their negligence, incompetence and criminal actions.
Slashdot Mirror
You will always find the other MP3 players at less than MSRP and you will never be able to purchase the iPod at anything other than MSRP. Barring farfegnugen freebies, of course. iPod minis are purely fashionable.
There are only two other players that have the capacity of the miniPod, so price comparisons are still plenty relevant. Even if some of those flashed players halfed their price in responce, you'd still have 4 times the storage for the money with the Mini.
And as the other poster said: either put up or STFU about these supposed markdowns on the other players.
That's not relevant. You're focusing on an irrelevant aspect.
If you made a typo and meant to say 'most relevant by far' then yes, you would be correct. If not, then you still had a few too many apples off the Frikkin Moron tree.
It would be like saying that shoplifting isn't stealing because stealing involves taking something from a person and shoplifting is taking something from a store. Because a store isn't a person, shoplifting isn't stealing.
What are you, majoring in Missing the Point at Retard Community College? You seem to be one of those inbreds who think that everything is 'theft' if it involves ownership of something and breaking a law. Tell me dear AC, why isn't it theft if I burn down your house? I've deprived you of worldly goods and possessions...you no longer have your house. Why isn't that theft? Because I burned down your house and *nobody* has it you moron! Thats why its called arson. Thats why we have some 700,000 words in the English language: so we have different names for different things that have nothing in common. Theft, arson. Theft, copyright infringment. Have your speech therapist help you with the big words if need be.
Lets try to break this down into an analogy your primitive mind can understand. If I break into your house and remove all your DVD's and CD's, that is theft because I've taken something from your possession and put it in mine. Now, lets say that rather than removing all your CD's and DVD's, I came in with my laptop and copied them all to disk rather than taking them out of your apartment. Now, how is that stealing from anybody? Sure, trespassing was still committed, but you still have all your CD's and DVD's. I didn't steal anything from you as you still have all your possessions. Did I steal anything from the studios? Of course not, as those were *your* DVD's and CD's, not the studios.
What did happen to the studios is that their right of control of distribution was violated. Rights that are set up in the Constitution. Rights that grant creators time limited, exclusive control over their works, with the exception of fair use rights. Rights that when infringed, means that copyright infringment has taken place.
Heh. Because the RIAA isn't the government. Let's do Government 101 here, okay? When a person or group conducts legal action against another person or group, that's called a civil action. When the government conducts legal action, it's a criminal action. Only the government has the authority to conduct criminal actions. That's how our legal system works.
Wow. Okay, for the really 'special' people in the audience (you) I'll spell this out. If something is stolen from you, you report it to the police and press charges. How many charges of theft have been pressed by the RIAA? A big fat fucking zero. If you want to split hairs over who literally does the prosecuting, go look at the number of people charged with theft by the government for committing copyright infringment. The number? Once again, a big fat fucking zero. The amount of money the RIAA has reported stolen (sound bytes aside)? A big fat fucking zero.
I repeat: the RIAA has the most vested interest, of anyone, of stomping out copyright infringment online. If infringment is actually theft, then why isn't the RIAA pressing charges/suing for it, since theft is a much more serious charge than copyright infringment? BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS YOU FUCKTARD.
Why hasn't the government prosecuted those who download music? Two reasons. First, because they have limited resources and much bigger fish to fry.
Yeah, they've gotta send FBI agents on raids on people suspected of getting the Half Life 2 source code. Yup, much bigger fish to fry.
Second, because it's basically impossible to build a case against a downloader without violating the rules of evidence. It's just more effective to pursue those criminals through the civil system. It's a pragmati
Copyright infringement is a form of stealing. Just like embezzlement, fraud, shoplifting, burglary, robbery, and pickpocketing are all forms of stealing.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. With all those above mentioned things, I remove something from your possession so its in mine and you no longer have it. With copyright infringment, I have a copy and you still have the origional.
You want proof? If this were really theft, then why isn't the RIAA prosecuting these downloaders for it? The answer is: its not theft you frikkin dumbass, never was never will be.
If you create the bits in question. You have the RIGHT to a monopoly on its distrubution.
Sure you do...thats why its called copyright, and violating that right is called copyright infringement. Still doesn't have anything to do with theft.
Copyright infringement is theft.
No, its not, never has been, never will be. If I don't remove something, putting it in my possession and removing it from yours, there is no theft. Deal with it.
Quit splitting hairs.
Bzzzt WRONG! You are the one splitting hairs, you cockbiting fucktard. *YOU* are calling it something ITS NOT to make it sound WORSE THAN IT REALLY IS. If there is no removal of property, there is no theft. Period.
Sure there will always be people like that - but the very fact that they refuse to pay for stuff makes them irrelevant to the equation. If they refuse to by songs, it doesn't matter if there's a black market or not, as the labels aren't going to see any money either way.
The fact that people are stealing
That would be copyright infringement not stealing, thank you. Which makes all that blather comparing p2p to shoplifting irrelevant. If no property is removed there is no theft, its that simple. No, I'm not splitting hairs or calling it something other than stealing to make it sound less serious, *you* are calling it something it's *not* to make it sound more serious than it really is.
If you simply provided a high quality product at a fair price over the internet, then piracy would be reduced to 10% of what it is today.
- They do. It's called iTunes.
The problem is that labels woke up to late, and movie studios haven't woken up at all. Most people are aware that their time is worth something, so they aren't going to spend endless amounts of time to get something for 'free' when they could spend a tenth of the time working and buy a pristine, flawless, legal copy of their own. But the problem is that they waited too long and too many good black market means exist. Its too late to stamp out piracy completely; it wouldn't matter now if songs on iTunes were a nickel apiece, as things like Kazaa and mp3 newsgroups are too well established.The rights of the copyright holders, obviously. They're the only ones with rights here. You certainly aren't entitled to any rights in this particular scenario, because you haven't done anything.
How ignorant can you get? Copyright in the Constitution is a social contract between society and copyright holders, intended to encourage them to create new works. Holders get artificial scarcity, but consumers have their rights as well - time shifting, fair use, and *reasonable time limits* on the length of copyrights. Congress seems to have forgotten about the last little provision there, as they keep extending it for 25 years at a time.
That's what record labels do: they fund the production process, so your music ends up sounding great on my car's six-speaker stereo system instead of sounding like two teenagers threw it together in their parents' garage.
Sure, to a certain extent you still "get what you pay for", but $200,000+ to record one album is just ridiculous.
The world would be a much quieter place without the RIAA. Music before record labels was reserved for the few who could find their way to a live performance. The few recordings that existed were scratchy and unpolished, and they cost a fortune. Get rid of the record labels, and music as you know it will cease to exist.
What, you're saying that because the music industry rose with the arrival of durable formats, means that recorded music depends on the labels? Just how stupid are you? The Grateful Dead and Phish did just fine without being slaves to the labels, and you can buy their music on cd. Hell, the aforementioned teenagers can get an eMac for $800 with a combo drive and Apple's free GarageBand software, and cut their own damn cd's.
Dumbass
Dumerass^3.
You ship millions of units that have numerous parts, some of them mechanical, and a small percentage will fail. Its called Shit Happens. People bitch about Apple's prices the way it is, how much more would it cost for them to insure that you Will Never Ever Have A Lemon?
Details? We had to borrow books! What more details do you want? The fact is, books cost a LOT less than buildings! My school graduated 27 people in 2002... Do we REALLY need a new gym? Its not like we decided to put in an athletics program, we HAD a gym.
Means nothing. Was your old gym condemned? Deemed a fire hazard? Had too much asbestos? How about the baseball field? Does the school make enough money from tickets so that spending $45,000 once a decade make sense? What was the student/classroom ratio? 30:1? 35:1? 40:1?
And math doesn't change. There's no reason why you couldn't take a bunch of well written math books from 1910 and use them in your classrooms.
Without more details, you have no case. All you are doing is yelling 'LOOK! They spent money on something other than textbooks! Corruption!!!!'
Funding for welfare, etc, isn't designed to wipe out poverty or mitigate its effects. It's designed to perpetuate poverty
What a retarded statment to make. Say you go ahead and eliminate welfare. Whar are the corresponding slums and increased crime rate going to do for your lifestyle and property values, Captain Self-Centered?
large expansions on two school that added ZERO student capacity
So? What was the student average per class before the expansions? If you're in one of those Arkansas disctrics with 40 kids to a classroom, I would certainally hope they'd do it that way.
began construction on a $2,000,000 Gym
News flash: buildings cost money.
and put $45,000 of new sod on the baseball field
Sports fields also cost money.
You need to provide better details; just listing a couple of price tags is not sufficient reason for reform.
Uh huh. You failed to mention a couple of things:
1) The annecdotes about "welfare queens" were mostly bullshit
2) Ok, lets go ahead and end all welfare and medicare. Then see how much selfish, self-centered conservatives like it when their property values drop and their crime rate increases.
Don't also forget the middle and lower classes make up the vast majoraty of consumers. So by being a greedy, self centered Scrooge and stomping on those lower than you is retarded, because you're stomping on your own customers.
I'm not one of those "fix our problems here first" people, as we would never explore space if we waited till all the problems were solved on earth first. However, that doesn't change the fact that we need to go about this with some responsibility. Republicans claimed they were the party of fiscal responsibility...now we have big tax cuts AND huge military spending AND increased domestic spending.
Its not that we shouldn't try for a moon base, its that the administration needs to stop is gross fiscal irresponsibility and get the budget in line before we talk about sending humans to Mars.
"were", "steal", and run-ons
Is tHat sO Mr random Capitalization? Bad Engines, bad!
I have a All in Wonder Radeon, and the damned thing still refuses to capture video reliably under anything but WinME. ATI has to get my last $200 Radeon card to work long before I give them another $200.
Why subpoena? To get facts. We agree on that. However, if all the plaintiff's facts were proven true and the case still doesn't have merit, then there is no reason to bother investigating the facts. If the assertions, if proven true, were to make a reasonable case, then the case is not meritless.
If the lawsuit has already happened, then what exactly are you going to ban?
Since you have an obvious problem with this subtle distinction, I will state it again. You can ban cases where, if all the facts were proven to be as the plaintiff asserts, the case still holds no merit. This will ban only meritless lawsuits and not ban any legitimate ones.
And you have an obvious chicken and egg problem that you don't understand. You can't get the facts without a supena, and you can't get a supena without a lawsuit. If the case is meritless, either the case will be dismissed or the jury will rule in favor of the defendant. Either way the case is over, and what is the point of banning something thats already happened? The case can be dismissed with prejudice, but you don't need a law for that as judges can already do that.
And since you are obviously ignorant of what one can be sued for (like being sued for treason by a private citizen), you are obviously not a reliable source of information on what frivolous suits currently are or are not being filed.
Its your assertion, so its your job to prove it. Just ask Harold. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." As treason is probably the most serious crime you can commit, and the Consitution is very specific about it, I seriously doubt that you will have a civil trial and no federal charges.
Just because it doesn't explicitly say privacy doesn't mean the idea isn't in there. I've heard this a lot, but just how, exactly, are you going to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" WITHOUT some measure of privacy?
But the matter is well-settled by the Supreme Court, i.e., that the Bill of Rights does not attach to non-citizens outside of the territory of the United States.
SCOTUS can also be wrong. If you really are a lawyer: Hepburn v. Griswold. Nuf said. As the Consitution does not say that the government is exempt from it outside our borders, I don't see how you can make an argument that the government is exempt from it's restrictions outside of the U.S. If it is, why don't we just make the Iraqi's into slaves to rebuild the infrastructure?
Clearly, the Bush Administration did its legal research on the issue.
And I'm sure mp3.com did lots of legal research on Beam It, too.
The facts are inconsequential if there exist no set of facts that would render the plaintiff's case worthy of a judgment.
Uh huh. Except you wont have the facts until you can supena information from the other party, and you can't do that without filing a lawsuit. So, once again...YOU CAN'T BAN MERITLESS LAWSUITS WITHOUT ALSO BANNING LEGITIMATE ONES!!!!
That is your opinion. Mine differs. I happen to know multiple people that have been sued for treason, my mother included.
I call bullshit. Treason is something you get executed for, not sued.
I don't see where it says in the Consititution that the government is exempt from the Constitution if its not on US soil.
OMG, you're right! Well, we might as well do nothing then, rather than take incremental steps to make things that much harder for people to slip through.
The problem isn't that they are trying to increase security, its that they are doing it in the most retarded, least effective way that stomps all over people's rights. Guess how much security has been increased at nuclear and chemical plants? Zero. All Al Queda has to do is steal a chlorine truck from a water treatment plant and blow it up in a large city. The gas clings to the ground and is lethal up to 20 miles away - the death toll could dwarf that of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
Anything to make us *actually* safer, instead of just pandering to a public's superficial need to *feel* safer.
Yes...I think Playboy had a nice article on the subject. Bush spends all his time stamping over people's rights, rather than increasing security where it REALLY matters. Like at nuclear power plants for example. Actually, if I were a terrorist, I'd just steal a chlorine truck from a water treatment plant and blow it up in the middle of New York city. Supposedly the stuff clings to the ground and is lethal up to 20 miles away. Do this in rush hour and the death total could dwarf the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
I have one that simply says "Creed Sucks" in big letters on the front. I have had many nice comments about it, such as "Nice shirt!" and "where did you get that shirt?" I have yet to run into a single person who dislikes it.
But there's one thats even better - it says "Even Jesus hates Creed"
Everytime someone links to the "facts"of this case it shows the same thing.The woman spilled coffee on herself and tried to hold MacDonalds responsible.
Bzzzzt...WRONG. Since you seem to be a little "slow", let me repeat myself: she did not sue and win because she dumped coffee on herself. She sued and one because McDonalds knowingly sold a dangerous product that could give people serious burns if spilled on the customer. Which would inevitably happen to a fair number of people. And there was no reason for it to happen. Is it Ford's fault if you drive your Pinto into a parked car at 10 miles an hour? Of course not. Is it Fords fault that they put in a shitty assed gas tank that starts on fire in a minor accident? Of course it is.
"Tort reform" is nothing more than a means for companies to avoid responsibility for their negligence, incompetence and criminal actions.