While I don't doubt the Entertainment Industry will consider this angle, the copyrighted work has already be distributed commercially (by broadcast), so I don't see how the law will apply. Now, if a pre-release DVD is distributed, then probably so.
People who think CITEL meetings are non-political in nature need to attend Clue 101 classes. These technical decisions represet billions in revenue, and it's all political.
And stop whining...it's getting old. You can't cry fascist everytime Chimpy McBushitler picks Whataburger over Burger King. Grow up.
Oh, and if you want to decide who gets to represent the Executive branch, try winning an election.
Just yesterday I was reading on Slashdot about how evil corporations were, about how they should not be allowed involvement in government or political campaigns.
But today many of the same people (I'm sure) are bitching about Microsoft's decision to stay out of this gay rights legislative battle.
Lesson learned: Corporate power is OK as long as they're fighting on my side.
Photo areas in wafer fabs use chemicals (photoresist) that harden when exposed to UV light, which ordinary fluorescent lights emit in very small amounts (and mostly the harmless UVB type). Fluorescent lights around photoresist have "yellow" (more amber, actually) coatings to absorb the UV.
Miller vs. CA gives states and localities the right to regulate obscene speech, given that it meets the three-prong test. Are you not aware this has been the law of the land since 1973?
You are right that filtering technology blocks non-obscene material. What is your legal basis for a govt being required to provide access to ANY private material, obscene or not? For instance, if a public library provides access to Time Magazine, are they also obliged to provide access to Newsweek?
No one's freedom of speech is being abridged - the govt is not obliged to provide access to your speech. Also, they are allowed to regulate obscene speech, as defined by the US Supreme Court in Miller vs. CA.
Wow. +4 Insightful for asking a bunch of why nots.
Here's why not: They're being punished. People who break the law should have no voice in government or society until they've paid their debt. Why should lawbreakers have a say in our lawmaking? Why should they be allowed a public forum, and why should law abiding citizens care about their opinion of anything?
From the summary, it seems that these researchers are now saying that the upper atmosphere was cooler than originally thought, thus atmospheric hydrogen escaped at a slower rate. So these researchers are essentially using a mathematical climate model.
Climate science is very difficult even when we have the actual system to study (modern earth). How can we with any certainty at all know what that system performed like 4 billion years ago? It's time we admit that this research is interesting, but it will always be just speculation backed up data with an amazing depth of variability that is arrived at by making many assumptions.
Is this a case of scientists looking for data that supports a particular theory? They know that life could arise much more easily if hydrogen was more plentiful on early earth, so they pose theories and look for data to support that?
It's not that easy. If you live in Vermont and buy a hotdog in New York, that doesn't make you exempt from paying NY state sales tax, nor does paying sales tax in NY entitle you to not vote for Hilary Clinton in 2006. There's a certain amount of "voluntaryness" to most taxes. You don't have to pay property taxes if you don't own property, don't have to pay sales tax if you don't buy anything, don't have to pay income tax if you have no income.
Also, you do have representation - in the state you reside in. You can always go to them for redress, either through legislation or the courts. Tennessee could just as easily say that other states don't have a right to confiscate (tax) the property (money) of Tennessee residents.
The judiciary is supposed to adjudicate disputes. Nothing else. This "protecting the minority from the majority" is nonsense. The judiciary just as often protects the majority from the minority.
Judicial activism refers to decisions which are contrary to or go far beyond the intent of the other branches of government - legislating from the bench through court orders.
I doubt if many here demanding context do the same thing when conservatives are quoted out of context. Many of you agree with her sentiment regardless of context, that it is desireable to confiscate the property of the wealthy for the common good.
But this caustic statement (Senator Clinton, the consummate politician, probably did not mean to sound so blunt) reveals a mindset and an attitude. We're going to take things away from you. Of course, this is true of all taxation, but rarely does it sound so much like "Gimme that back, it's mine". But that's her true government-knows-best self. Her views are very similar to the modern version of Chinese Communism, fascism with a big feel-good smiley-face on it.
And Clinton continues to move to the right. There's a chance she could win Ohio or Florida in an election. However, first she must lie to New York voters about serving a full term when she runs for re-election in 2006. Win or lose the Senate race, she will run in '08, and she can win. If that sounds like a catastrophe to you, the time to do something about it is now.
The "teenage version" of well-established characters has been done in comic books for decades (what do you think Superboy was?) to the point of being an unbearable cliche. So I'm guessing Paramount had already thrown this idea around, unless they really are truly brain dead over at Paramount.
Not saying it's not a great idea, I would definitely watch a Star Trek Academy show (unlike either Voyager or Enterprise, which I quickly lost interest in). This could clearly make a mint for Paramount too.
I'm not interested in Shatner being involved in it, except maybe as consultant.
Or could it be that the hot, important issues you list here simply aren't as important to the rest of us as you think they should be? After all, most of these issues are liberal hot point issues that make assumptions that aren't true.
For instance, gerrymandering? People have been bitching about gerrymandering for centuries. But it's a hot issue to you now that the Republicans are going to undo the pathetically partisan Democratic district lines drawn in southern states over the past century.
And since when do open democracies take to the streets by the millions to topple presidents? That's mob rule, not democracy! And it only seems to happen in places like the Ukraine, Kyrzygstan, and Lebanon, where the people are tired of their corrupt politicians and petty dictators.
Healthy mistrust of govt is a good thing. But no one is listening to your argument because you're acting like an arrogant know-it-all asshole. Your attitude lacks the open-minded approach you think everyone else should have. In fact, I think you know little and have no basis for the positions you hold, other than fuzzy convictions and high minded ideals that ignore real world realities. That's fine, but isn't relevant to the lack of education you accuse the rest of us as having.
On what do you base your belief that captured enemy combatants have due process rights? Geneva convention? It's actually against the convention to try captured combatants for lawful actions related to combat. They can be tried for war crimes and spying (out of uniform, understand?), but that is at the discretion of the holding force. They have no right to trial.
In the current climate you must accept one of two views: We are at war, or we are not at war. If you agree we are at war against an organized Islamic fascist ideology that seeks to destroy US interests at home and abroad, then most of the stuff at Gitmo is legal and necessary, by any treaty you can quote. Not torture, if that is happening, but everything else. Indefinite holding, no legal representation, access to courts for the redress of grievances. It's simply your fantasy that these rights exist. If you want to believe they should have these rights, fine, but don't call others "fucking pathetic" because we don't toe the ACLU line. Your concept of legal protections in wartime simply has no basis in fact.
The truth is: most prisoners at Gitmo would delight in seeing your head separated from your body, or "freedom, liberty, and rights" ripped from you.Yes, even the bleeding heart liberals. They tend to be sexually amoral and humanistic, and this is not allowed. Understand?
Don't waste your time weeping for them. They are certainly being treated better than they would in any other Middle Eastern prison.
Journalists usually hide behind the 1st ammendment not because they are pricipled, but because it's good business, and good for their careers. No source will talk to a journalist if they know the journalist will rat them out if leaned on. If someone has knowledge of a crime, they should be talking to the authorities, NOT journalists. Whistleblowers have legal protection.
If a person is convicted of a felony that they feel should not be illegal
Engaging in civil disobedience is risky, because you may in fact be convicted of a crime, which may be upheld on appeal. If you take the risk of breaking the law, then you must pay the consequences. That is the price you pay for bringing attention to the issue. If you can't pay the price, don't take the risk. There are many legal means of fighting an unjust law (throw the bums out!).
or if they are wrongfully convicted of a felony
Wrongful convictions are an injustice. Modifying punishment because "maybe we made a mistake" is ridiculous. Maybe we should take a few years off the sentence? Maybe we should make child molesters register for 10 years instead of 20? Lunacy.
What, no facts to back your opinion up? Here, I'll help:
Enron Democrats. (I hope The Nation is liberal enough for you to trust.)
Also, let it be noted that you think burglars, tax cheats, car theives, and embezzlers are not "oooo evil". Victimizing the innocent is certainly a fine way to prove your civic pride. Why, they must be fine citizens! Let's force the states to let them vote! States! Do Our Bidding or Lose Your Funding!
The purpose of this bill is not to improve the voting process - the same ideas have been proposed before. The purpose of this bill is to help Democrats get to the polls on election day. Here's how:
Forces states to allow ex-felons to vote. In states where felons are allowed to vote, votes can favor Democrats 10:1. Yes, this means states will be forced to allow murderers, rapists, and molesters who have completed parole the opportunity to help select who represents your community. Shouldn't states be allowed to decide this for themselves? And why is it Democrats are so worried about voting rights for ex-cons, anyway? Are Democrats the party of felons ?
Make Voting Day a federal holiday. This means all the people who work for the federal, state, and local governments will have higher turnout, as they will have the day off. Guess which way these people vote? People who don't work for the govt won't have the day off.
The bill states "failure to provide information concerning citizenship or age" or "a social security number or driver's license number" is not considered a "material omission" that would bar people from voting. All you have to do is sign an affadavit at the poll, on election day. This will allow anyone - anyone at all - to vote. The only chance of having the vote disallowed is in the event of a recount, when the paperwork is checked.
Finding the text of this bill has been difficult. The PDF at the PFAW website is gone (why???). Here is Google's HTML cache.
Also, I am absolutely convinced there is some form of incestuous relationship between DailyKos and Slashdot. Way too many stories crediting Kos's blog are making it to the Slashdot front page.
I don't believe anyone has found a way to make bio-fuels that consume less energy in their production than the final product offers. In other words, it takes far less energy to convert crude oil in to end user fuel (like gasoline) than it does to convert any crop into a similar end user fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
You're obviously not making $50 a pop removing spyware from the computers of idiots. No thanks, nanny Spitzer - I prefer to let Darwin sort this out.
While I don't doubt the Entertainment Industry will consider this angle, the copyrighted work has already be distributed commercially (by broadcast), so I don't see how the law will apply. Now, if a pre-release DVD is distributed, then probably so.
People who think CITEL meetings are non-political in nature need to attend Clue 101 classes. These technical decisions represet billions in revenue, and it's all political.
And stop whining...it's getting old. You can't cry fascist everytime Chimpy McBushitler picks Whataburger over Burger King. Grow up.
Oh, and if you want to decide who gets to represent the Executive branch, try winning an election.
Just yesterday I was reading on Slashdot about how evil corporations were, about how they should not be allowed involvement in government or political campaigns.
But today many of the same people (I'm sure) are bitching about Microsoft's decision to stay out of this gay rights legislative battle.
Lesson learned: Corporate power is OK as long as they're fighting on my side.
Hypocrites.
In other words, a special right.
And screaming "Racist!" is so 1995.
Photo areas in wafer fabs use chemicals (photoresist) that harden when exposed to UV light, which ordinary fluorescent lights emit in very small amounts (and mostly the harmless UVB type). Fluorescent lights around photoresist have "yellow" (more amber, actually) coatings to absorb the UV.
Miller vs. CA gives states and localities the right to regulate obscene speech, given that it meets the three-prong test. Are you not aware this has been the law of the land since 1973?
You are right that filtering technology blocks non-obscene material. What is your legal basis for a govt being required to provide access to ANY private material, obscene or not? For instance, if a public library provides access to Time Magazine, are they also obliged to provide access to Newsweek?
No one's freedom of speech is being abridged - the govt is not obliged to provide access to your speech. Also, they are allowed to regulate obscene speech, as defined by the US Supreme Court in Miller vs. CA.
Wow. +4 Insightful for asking a bunch of why nots.
Here's why not: They're being punished. People who break the law should have no voice in government or society until they've paid their debt. Why should lawbreakers have a say in our lawmaking? Why should they be allowed a public forum, and why should law abiding citizens care about their opinion of anything?
From the summary, it seems that these researchers are now saying that the upper atmosphere was cooler than originally thought, thus atmospheric hydrogen escaped at a slower rate. So these researchers are essentially using a mathematical climate model.
Climate science is very difficult even when we have the actual system to study (modern earth). How can we with any certainty at all know what that system performed like 4 billion years ago? It's time we admit that this research is interesting, but it will always be just speculation backed up data with an amazing depth of variability that is arrived at by making many assumptions.
Is this a case of scientists looking for data that supports a particular theory? They know that life could arise much more easily if hydrogen was more plentiful on early earth, so they pose theories and look for data to support that?
The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-US Citizens.
You can't teach someone to be clever when they are motivated by ignorance and hate.
It's not that easy. If you live in Vermont and buy a hotdog in New York, that doesn't make you exempt from paying NY state sales tax, nor does paying sales tax in NY entitle you to not vote for Hilary Clinton in 2006. There's a certain amount of "voluntaryness" to most taxes. You don't have to pay property taxes if you don't own property, don't have to pay sales tax if you don't buy anything, don't have to pay income tax if you have no income.
Also, you do have representation - in the state you reside in. You can always go to them for redress, either through legislation or the courts. Tennessee could just as easily say that other states don't have a right to confiscate (tax) the property (money) of Tennessee residents.
This is heading to the feds.
The judiciary is supposed to adjudicate disputes. Nothing else. This "protecting the minority from the majority" is nonsense. The judiciary just as often protects the majority from the minority.
Judicial activism refers to decisions which are contrary to or go far beyond the intent of the other branches of government - legislating from the bench through court orders.
I doubt if many here demanding context do the same thing when conservatives are quoted out of context. Many of you agree with her sentiment regardless of context, that it is desireable to confiscate the property of the wealthy for the common good.
But this caustic statement (Senator Clinton, the consummate politician, probably did not mean to sound so blunt) reveals a mindset and an attitude. We're going to take things away from you. Of course, this is true of all taxation, but rarely does it sound so much like "Gimme that back, it's mine". But that's her true government-knows-best self. Her views are very similar to the modern version of Chinese Communism, fascism with a big feel-good smiley-face on it.
And Clinton continues to move to the right. There's a chance she could win Ohio or Florida in an election. However, first she must lie to New York voters about serving a full term when she runs for re-election in 2006. Win or lose the Senate race, she will run in '08, and she can win. If that sounds like a catastrophe to you, the time to do something about it is now.
The "teenage version" of well-established characters has been done in comic books for decades (what do you think Superboy was?) to the point of being an unbearable cliche. So I'm guessing Paramount had already thrown this idea around, unless they really are truly brain dead over at Paramount.
Not saying it's not a great idea, I would definitely watch a Star Trek Academy show (unlike either Voyager or Enterprise, which I quickly lost interest in). This could clearly make a mint for Paramount too.
I'm not interested in Shatner being involved in it, except maybe as consultant.
Or could it be that the hot, important issues you list here simply aren't as important to the rest of us as you think they should be? After all, most of these issues are liberal hot point issues that make assumptions that aren't true.
For instance, gerrymandering? People have been bitching about gerrymandering for centuries. But it's a hot issue to you now that the Republicans are going to undo the pathetically partisan Democratic district lines drawn in southern states over the past century.
And since when do open democracies take to the streets by the millions to topple presidents? That's mob rule, not democracy! And it only seems to happen in places like the Ukraine, Kyrzygstan, and Lebanon, where the people are tired of their corrupt politicians and petty dictators.
Healthy mistrust of govt is a good thing. But no one is listening to your argument because you're acting like an arrogant know-it-all asshole. Your attitude lacks the open-minded approach you think everyone else should have. In fact, I think you know little and have no basis for the positions you hold, other than fuzzy convictions and high minded ideals that ignore real world realities. That's fine, but isn't relevant to the lack of education you accuse the rest of us as having.
On what do you base your belief that captured enemy combatants have due process rights? Geneva convention? It's actually against the convention to try captured combatants for lawful actions related to combat. They can be tried for war crimes and spying (out of uniform, understand?), but that is at the discretion of the holding force. They have no right to trial.
In the current climate you must accept one of two views: We are at war, or we are not at war. If you agree we are at war against an organized Islamic fascist ideology that seeks to destroy US interests at home and abroad, then most of the stuff at Gitmo is legal and necessary, by any treaty you can quote. Not torture, if that is happening, but everything else. Indefinite holding, no legal representation, access to courts for the redress of grievances. It's simply your fantasy that these rights exist. If you want to believe they should have these rights, fine, but don't call others "fucking pathetic" because we don't toe the ACLU line. Your concept of legal protections in wartime simply has no basis in fact.
The truth is: most prisoners at Gitmo would delight in seeing your head separated from your body, or "freedom, liberty, and rights" ripped from you.Yes, even the bleeding heart liberals. They tend to be sexually amoral and humanistic, and this is not allowed. Understand?
Don't waste your time weeping for them. They are certainly being treated better than they would in any other Middle Eastern prison.
Screenshots of the writer defragging his hard drive?
He should and must, if a court compels him to.
Journalists usually hide behind the 1st ammendment not because they are pricipled, but because it's good business, and good for their careers. No source will talk to a journalist if they know the journalist will rat them out if leaned on. If someone has knowledge of a crime, they should be talking to the authorities, NOT journalists. Whistleblowers have legal protection.
If a person is convicted of a felony that they feel should not be illegal
Engaging in civil disobedience is risky, because you may in fact be convicted of a crime, which may be upheld on appeal. If you take the risk of breaking the law, then you must pay the consequences. That is the price you pay for bringing attention to the issue. If you can't pay the price, don't take the risk. There are many legal means of fighting an unjust law (throw the bums out!).
or if they are wrongfully convicted of a felony
Wrongful convictions are an injustice. Modifying punishment because "maybe we made a mistake" is ridiculous. Maybe we should take a few years off the sentence? Maybe we should make child molesters register for 10 years instead of 20? Lunacy.
What, no facts to back your opinion up? Here, I'll help:
Enron Democrats. (I hope The Nation is liberal enough for you to trust.)
Also, let it be noted that you think burglars, tax cheats, car theives, and embezzlers are not "oooo evil". Victimizing the innocent is certainly a fine way to prove your civic pride. Why, they must be fine citizens! Let's force the states to let them vote! States! Do Our Bidding or Lose Your Funding!
More here.
Finding the text of this bill has been difficult. The PDF at the PFAW website is gone (why???). Here is Google's HTML cache.
Also, I am absolutely convinced there is some form of incestuous relationship between DailyKos and Slashdot. Way too many stories crediting Kos's blog are making it to the Slashdot front page.
Texas schools are middle of the pack. They rank slightly ahead of the US average in mathematics and slightly behind in reading.
BTW, fuck you and here's a different former governor you can have.
I don't believe anyone has found a way to make bio-fuels that consume less energy in their production than the final product offers. In other words, it takes far less energy to convert crude oil in to end user fuel (like gasoline) than it does to convert any crop into a similar end user fuel.