The money is used for the purpose of promoting the candidate's message. Restricting how much money the candidate can accept for that purpose puts an artificial limit on his or her ability to convey the message - and, therefore, restricts speech.
While it's no secret that polticians tend to favor those who support their campaigns, it IS still illegal to outright trade money for a vote. We need better scruitiny to ensure that's not happening, and hold officials accountable when it does. We don't need extra, arguably unconstitutional restrictions to dance around the problem.
If your explicit purpose in naming the file "Brittany Spears" is to throw off any authorities (I'm talking about police here, not the RIAA) who might be investigating allegations of copyright infringement on a network to which you belong, I'd say there's a pretty good chance a decent lawyer could argue you were obstructing justice. If your entire purpose was to make searches of the the network futule for the law enforcement you know or suspect to be snooping around, then yes, you're obstructing justice.
A decent defense lawyer could certainly argue your intent was never to interfere, and you have a right to name files however you please. But if the prosecution can convince a jury you were going out of your way to make life harder on law enforcement, you have a problem.
It might not be illegal to shout out the word "Rape" on a crowded street (although I bet there's some disturbing the peace-type charge that applies, but let's omit that for a moment). After all, "rape" is just a noun, not even a statement. You have a right to freedom of speech and can say whatever you please. You don't need permission from anyone. But if you and 20 friends are shouting "rape" 20 times a day in an area where real rapes are known to occur, for the explicit purpose of making real cries tougher for the police to pick out, I'm sure the cops would like to have a word with you downtown.
I know there would have been copyright issues, but I was always surprised no one put together a complete guide recreation - using the entries from the radio shows, tv show, books and computer game - for the Palm or PocketPC platforms. It's really not very many entries, and it would be a cute little novelty application.
Those copyright issues would likely come more into play with the movie coming out, though. The interested parties have more of a stake in protecting their material now that it's going super-mainstream.
Then you get criminally charged with obstruction of justice, for faking a crime with the intent to make it harder for authorities to weed out the real violators.
Easy blacklisting, for school and library filters. Also, for scrupulous porn sites, it's good marketing.
Let's say hustler.com simply becamed a redirect to huster.xxx. Any school/library filter would instantly know it's a no-no site, without having some schlub at the filter company check to see if its about tricking people on the basketball court.
For various reasons, FORCING sites onto the xxx tld would be a bad thing - you'd have to put someone in charge of deciding what's pornographic, or adult, and that's a dangerous distinction to let any one group/person make. But the domain would be a great place for the sites that clearly acknowledge they're adult in nature -- after all, you'd know where to find them. It would be good marketing.
For the seedy sites that try to fool you into visiting them, or that pretend to be one thing when they're really another, this doesn't do much.
Except in our highly socialized, highly advanced world, the weak still tend to thrive and reproduce.
Lets say we all waited to 40, as you say, or maybe 50. Out of those who can still reproduce, a number of women would be likely to produce children with down syndrome or other developmental disabilities. But these children won't simply die off and leave the reproducing to those more fit in an evolutionary sense. We have enough knowledge about the condition these days for many people with DS to live healthy, lengthy lives. And we have social infrastructures - medical institutions, government programs, educational resources for parents - to see that most of those children recieve the benefits modern society can provide.
I'd guess lawyers could probably haggle over whether "In my opinion" is enough to disclaim such a statement. It also depends on context. If you're clearly not trying to convince anyone that what you say is fact - there's an obvious context of sarcasm or satire - you're OK to.
If Jay Leno makes a joke about Bill Gates using MS software to have computers electrocute the HS jocks who used to pick on him, Leno isn't going to get sued.
Whether saying "Their workers have potty mouths" is a problem depends on whether there's any way the false accusation can cause the company harm. If the company's standing depends on a squeeky-clean image, but you spread a story about its workers making long shoremen look like angels, they might have a case against you.
No, it's simply insulting. Saying the company beats children in sweatshops when it actually pays legal workers fair wages would be defamation. Saying it's president once killed a guy would be defamation.
Stating an opinion, even an ill-conceived one, isn't defamation or libel. Stating true, but unflattering facts is OK too. Spreading lies that cause a real hazard to the subject will get you in trouble.
That's like saying burglary is caused by unlocked doors.
Spam is caused by spammers. The fools who buy the products provide the needed motivation, but ultimately, spam is caused by the guy writing and sending the mail.
You know, I submitted it two weeks ago ...
on
**No Title**
·
· Score: 1
THere's still something dangerous with the state deciding which material is objectionable, and which isn't, even if the blacklist is optional.
for instance, lets say we have two borderline objectionable sites, both with some potentially redeeming social content on them. one's content has liberal leanings. the other has conservative leanings. do you want the government even making a recomendation as to which one is ok for your children to see? do you want it giving a commercial advantage to one over the other? do you want one to enjoy the validation of the government's implicit endorsement, while the other suffers because of the persecution of the government's placement on the list?
Sure there is. Circumventing DRM is against the DCMA. Preventing it from being applied in the first place... well, beats me. But I'd like as many options as possible.
Well, there are those of us who think that no DRM is acceptable - and furthermore that no DRM is unbreakable, and therefore futile. DVD Jon's done a great job demonstrating the latter with iTMS, and previously DVDCSS.
This isn't about getting free music. It's about removing restrictions that traditionally haven't been in place on consumer media. DRM of any kind can become an obstruction even during benign activities traditionally protected under fair use. Sure, i COULD burn my DRMed AACs to a CD then re-rip to an MP3 to get my files onto my NOMAD or CD-MP3 player, but it's a pain in the rear and I'm going to lose my tag info. If there weren't restrictions on the files, that would be a non-issue.
Yes, Apple's DRM is less obtrusive than most, but it still locks you out from things you've traditionally been allowed to do. And that's simply not OK.
We need to keep up the appearance that we're only taking ones that match, as a deterrent. We're not about to have 17-year-old cashiers accuse grandmothers of theft because they don't loop their Rs as extravigantly as they used to.
For the same reason, if a store associate outright sees someone stealing, he or she isn't to interfere. Instead, the associate is supposed to tell a manager, who is supposed to handle the situation.
Um, I'm guessing the ability to use a pencil or telephone has a pretty HUGE impact on employability or wage levels. I'm certainly not hiring anyone who tells me they can't use a pencil, telephone, or computer.
I work twice a week at a large-chain record store. We've all be instructed, repeatedly, to check for the signatures. As a low-level manager there, I make damn sure the store associates are doing it.
We won't take a card without a signature on it, or process a transaction for someone whose name doesn't appear on the card (including family). While we check to see if the signature matches, we generally WON'T generally call someone out on a signature that looks different, unless the purchase is unusually large. If we have a suspicion that someone is using a card fraudulently, we notify our managers, who then notify our corporate office and mall security.
We're not in the business of accusing people without air-tight evidence, because it's bad customer service. Once the appropriate parties have been notified, we and others in our chain keep an eye out for the potential offender and look for more blatant signs of theft or theft of services.
Yeah, but he still got it before apple. Why should this guy be penalized just for recognizing apple missed the boat and trying to make a buck off it? Apple was careless.
You said in this post and several child posts you were refuting a claim about judges no longer being needed for warrants. Nobody claimed otherwise. Several people did claim, rightfully, that the judicial oversight is worth much less since the judges aren't given enough information to make enforcement judgements. And the Patriot act expands the scope of things you can do without warrants - that was my initial point.
Stop arguing against arugments no one has made, and face the ones they do.
That would lead to a tyranny of the majority. One of the basic principles of modern democracy is that its basic rules protect those with unpopular views. In a year where the conservatives rule, how fair would it be to exclude the liberal media from this boondogle (or vice versa), and what avenue would the public use to learn about the other side.
Everyone in a democracy has a vested interest in a vigorous dialouge between those of opposing viewpoints.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake is a worthwhile endeavor. Every new piece of information leads to a greater understanding of the big picture.
Besides, "useless" knowledge often proves key to unintendend, unsought, useful advances.
The money is used for the purpose of promoting the candidate's message. Restricting how much money the candidate can accept for that purpose puts an artificial limit on his or her ability to convey the message - and, therefore, restricts speech.
While it's no secret that polticians tend to favor those who support their campaigns, it IS still illegal to outright trade money for a vote. We need better scruitiny to ensure that's not happening, and hold officials accountable when it does. We don't need extra, arguably unconstitutional restrictions to dance around the problem.
Actually, the BushMen know all about the Internets already. And now I hear one has an iPod.
If your explicit purpose in naming the file "Brittany Spears" is to throw off any authorities (I'm talking about police here, not the RIAA) who might be investigating allegations of copyright infringement on a network to which you belong, I'd say there's a pretty good chance a decent lawyer could argue you were obstructing justice. If your entire purpose was to make searches of the the network futule for the law enforcement you know or suspect to be snooping around, then yes, you're obstructing justice.
A decent defense lawyer could certainly argue your intent was never to interfere, and you have a right to name files however you please. But if the prosecution can convince a jury you were going out of your way to make life harder on law enforcement, you have a problem.
It might not be illegal to shout out the word "Rape" on a crowded street (although I bet there's some disturbing the peace-type charge that applies, but let's omit that for a moment). After all, "rape" is just a noun, not even a statement. You have a right to freedom of speech and can say whatever you please. You don't need permission from anyone. But if you and 20 friends are shouting "rape" 20 times a day in an area where real rapes are known to occur, for the explicit purpose of making real cries tougher for the police to pick out, I'm sure the cops would like to have a word with you downtown.
I know there would have been copyright issues, but I was always surprised no one put together a complete guide recreation - using the entries from the radio shows, tv show, books and computer game - for the Palm or PocketPC platforms. It's really not very many entries, and it would be a cute little novelty application.
Those copyright issues would likely come more into play with the movie coming out, though. The interested parties have more of a stake in protecting their material now that it's going super-mainstream.
Under what math is $36 20 percent of $741? Is this with the calculator bundled with XP Starter Edition?
I suppose you meant its about 20 percent of the weekly pay?
Then you get criminally charged with obstruction of justice, for faking a crime with the intent to make it harder for authorities to weed out the real violators.
Easy blacklisting, for school and library filters. Also, for scrupulous porn sites, it's good marketing.
Let's say hustler.com simply becamed a redirect to huster.xxx. Any school/library filter would instantly know it's a no-no site, without having some schlub at the filter company check to see if its about tricking people on the basketball court.
For various reasons, FORCING sites onto the xxx tld would be a bad thing - you'd have to put someone in charge of deciding what's pornographic, or adult, and that's a dangerous distinction to let any one group/person make. But the domain would be a great place for the sites that clearly acknowledge they're adult in nature -- after all, you'd know where to find them. It would be good marketing.
For the seedy sites that try to fool you into visiting them, or that pretend to be one thing when they're really another, this doesn't do much.
Nano Nano!
Except in our highly socialized, highly advanced world, the weak still tend to thrive and reproduce.
Lets say we all waited to 40, as you say, or maybe 50. Out of those who can still reproduce, a number of women would be likely to produce children with down syndrome or other developmental disabilities. But these children won't simply die off and leave the reproducing to those more fit in an evolutionary sense. We have enough knowledge about the condition these days for many people with DS to live healthy, lengthy lives. And we have social infrastructures - medical institutions, government programs, educational resources for parents - to see that most of those children recieve the benefits modern society can provide.
I'd guess lawyers could probably haggle over whether "In my opinion" is enough to disclaim such a statement. It also depends on context. If you're clearly not trying to convince anyone that what you say is fact - there's an obvious context of sarcasm or satire - you're OK to.
If Jay Leno makes a joke about Bill Gates using MS software to have computers electrocute the HS jocks who used to pick on him, Leno isn't going to get sued.
Whether saying "Their workers have potty mouths" is a problem depends on whether there's any way the false accusation can cause the company harm. If the company's standing depends on a squeeky-clean image, but you spread a story about its workers making long shoremen look like angels, they might have a case against you.
"Because *sucks.com is not defamating?"
No, it's simply insulting. Saying the company beats children in sweatshops when it actually pays legal workers fair wages would be defamation. Saying it's president once killed a guy would be defamation.
Stating an opinion, even an ill-conceived one, isn't defamation or libel. Stating true, but unflattering facts is OK too. Spreading lies that cause a real hazard to the subject will get you in trouble.
How might this technology react if the user were to Wang Chung? Or perhaps do the Safety Dance (after all, we CAN dance if we want to).
That's like saying burglary is caused by unlocked doors.
Spam is caused by spammers. The fools who buy the products provide the needed motivation, but ultimately, spam is caused by the guy writing and sending the mail.
You know, I submitted it two weeks ago ...
Just don't eat your iPod Shuffle.
THere's still something dangerous with the state deciding which material is objectionable, and which isn't, even if the blacklist is optional.
for instance, lets say we have two borderline objectionable sites, both with some potentially redeeming social content on them. one's content has liberal leanings. the other has conservative leanings. do you want the government even making a recomendation as to which one is ok for your children to see? do you want it giving a commercial advantage to one over the other? do you want one to enjoy the validation of the government's implicit endorsement, while the other suffers because of the persecution of the government's placement on the list?
Sure there is. Circumventing DRM is against the DCMA. Preventing it from being applied in the first place ... well, beats me. But I'd like as many options as possible.
Well, there are those of us who think that no DRM is acceptable - and furthermore that no DRM is unbreakable, and therefore futile. DVD Jon's done a great job demonstrating the latter with iTMS, and previously DVDCSS.
This isn't about getting free music. It's about removing restrictions that traditionally haven't been in place on consumer media. DRM of any kind can become an obstruction even during benign activities traditionally protected under fair use. Sure, i COULD burn my DRMed AACs to a CD then re-rip to an MP3 to get my files onto my NOMAD or CD-MP3 player, but it's a pain in the rear and I'm going to lose my tag info. If there weren't restrictions on the files, that would be a non-issue.
Yes, Apple's DRM is less obtrusive than most, but it still locks you out from things you've traditionally been allowed to do. And that's simply not OK.
We need to keep up the appearance that we're only taking ones that match, as a deterrent. We're not about to have 17-year-old cashiers accuse grandmothers of theft because they don't loop their Rs as extravigantly as they used to.
For the same reason, if a store associate outright sees someone stealing, he or she isn't to interfere. Instead, the associate is supposed to tell a manager, who is supposed to handle the situation.
Um, I'm guessing the ability to use a pencil or telephone has a pretty HUGE impact on employability or wage levels. I'm certainly not hiring anyone who tells me they can't use a pencil, telephone, or computer.
I work twice a week at a large-chain record store. We've all be instructed, repeatedly, to check for the signatures. As a low-level manager there, I make damn sure the store associates are doing it.
We won't take a card without a signature on it, or process a transaction for someone whose name doesn't appear on the card (including family). While we check to see if the signature matches, we generally WON'T generally call someone out on a signature that looks different, unless the purchase is unusually large. If we have a suspicion that someone is using a card fraudulently, we notify our managers, who then notify our corporate office and mall security.
We're not in the business of accusing people without air-tight evidence, because it's bad customer service. Once the appropriate parties have been notified, we and others in our chain keep an eye out for the potential offender and look for more blatant signs of theft or theft of services.
Yeah, but he still got it before apple. Why should this guy be penalized just for recognizing apple missed the boat and trying to make a buck off it? Apple was careless.
You said in this post and several child posts you were refuting a claim about judges no longer being needed for warrants. Nobody claimed otherwise. Several people did claim, rightfully, that the judicial oversight is worth much less since the judges aren't given enough information to make enforcement judgements. And the Patriot act expands the scope of things you can do without warrants - that was my initial point.
Stop arguing against arugments no one has made, and face the ones they do.
That would lead to a tyranny of the majority. One of the basic principles of modern democracy is that its basic rules protect those with unpopular views. In a year where the conservatives rule, how fair would it be to exclude the liberal media from this boondogle (or vice versa), and what avenue would the public use to learn about the other side.
Everyone in a democracy has a vested interest in a vigorous dialouge between those of opposing viewpoints.