If you are not absolutely sure you got in and out undetected, make it look like you are after something else is a good way to hide your true intention.
Take your logic and go home. Can't you see I'm in a frenzied panic here?
Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?
Because the WHO didn't make a big deal about adding those to the list. This is another mostly useless organization throwing FUD around trying to look relevant instead of focusing on the small part of what they do that is actually relevant. Pretty much status quo.
The military is controlled by the federal government - you know, the entity the Constitution limited the powers of. Sheriff's are civilians and do not act on behalf of the federal government.
In this context the Sheriff would be enforcing a contract based in civil law. The federal government is in no way limiting one's right to free speech.
So you are postulating that the entire civil court system is unconstitutional because there may feasibly be a case that hinges upon something someone said?
The constitution serves to define and limit the powers of the federal government. It does not imply that courts cannot have jurisdiction over civil matters that may relate to speech, religion, or any other Bill of Rights topic you may attach to the argument.
You are either 1) trolling, or 2) very thick headed.
And by the way, the court will not send soldiers to collect a civil judgement. So even the point you thought you had is moot.
The government is not doing anything to impact your right to free speech. You do that yourself by signing the contract.
The government is not going to enforce this by sending soldiers to break your fingers if you type a bad review on ihatemydentist.com. The contract is a civil matter, and you will be sued in civil court. There is no government infringement of your rights anywhere in the vicinity of this concept.
A letter from the hospital's council is likely to have the same effect on many people, contract or not. The presence of an unenforceable contract isn't really a game changer.
Seriously, why are people so worried about this? Do you intend to sign the contact with "Anonymous Coward on Slashdot". The doctor needs to demonstrate the material to take down is indeed theirs.
The contract sounds horrendous but is almost completely unenforceable.
The Constitution says the government cannot infringe on your right to free speech. You can certainly enter into a contract to limit your speech. That is exactly what Non Disclosure Agreements are.
Bob and a duck walk into a bar. The bartender says "We don't serve quacks in here". The duck turns to leave, and the bartender says "no, the duck can stay - it is that quack pretending to be a doctor that has to leave".
It is that boring old argument about correlation != causality.
I'm not arguing that reducing CFCs and other emissions is a bad thing, but when emotions and political leanings enter the argument it is far to often to emerge wrong, not matter how right one may be.
Great plan, except you are one generation away from having no one capable of creating new algorithms for computers. If one cannot do it, one cannot tell the computer how to do it.
Innovative doesn't mean never done before. If you can do the same old thing better such as that it completely replaces the same old thing, it is innovation.
What, that whole car concept is not innovative. It has four wheels. Wagons had four wheels.
I am certainly not devoted to Apple. There are several things I dislike about their products. But I do have an iPhone. Why? Because it was best in class when it came out. It was able to replace my phone and my PDA - something no other device had done adequately, much less well. The iPhone was by far better than my company issued Windows phone (don't even remember what version it was, but it was horrible). So Apple innovated by doing the same old things far better than anyone else did. I still have an iPhone all these years later because although some Android phones are pretty good, they are not good enough to make the cost of switching worthwhile. Why? Because even with the shortcomings of Apple's app store, developers have managed to create some apps that I regularly use.
I use a Windows 7 laptop too, if you really want to hate.
group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists
It is funny to see how the Slashdot community loves to bash Apple and those that use Apple products. Read some of the comment threads bashing MS and singing the praises of [insert alternate OS here] or hyping Android over iOS.
It is easy to see the fault in others, but a more difficult proposition when looking in the mirror.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume that wasn't done.
If you are not absolutely sure you got in and out undetected, make it look like you are after something else is a good way to hide your true intention.
to justify "Duh" studies.
Who would have thought?
Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?
Because the WHO didn't make a big deal about adding those to the list. This is another mostly useless organization throwing FUD around trying to look relevant instead of focusing on the small part of what they do that is actually relevant. Pretty much status quo.
"Yes, you have to reach an entire 18 to 24 inches"
when I said that to my wife she was impressed
Don't be so proud of yourself. It is her stock answer. She said the same to me.
No, not really.
The military is controlled by the federal government - you know, the entity the Constitution limited the powers of. Sheriff's are civilians and do not act on behalf of the federal government.
In this context the Sheriff would be enforcing a contract based in civil law. The federal government is in no way limiting one's right to free speech.
I'm saying that a ruling that punishes someone for something they said is unconstitutional
You are completely wrong. Staying awake during civics class would have been beneficial to your understanding of this issue.
If you are British.
So you are postulating that the entire civil court system is unconstitutional because there may feasibly be a case that hinges upon something someone said?
The constitution serves to define and limit the powers of the federal government. It does not imply that courts cannot have jurisdiction over civil matters that may relate to speech, religion, or any other Bill of Rights topic you may attach to the argument.
You are either 1) trolling, or 2) very thick headed.
And by the way, the court will not send soldiers to collect a civil judgement. So even the point you thought you had is moot.
Not even close to being correct.
The government is not doing anything to impact your right to free speech. You do that yourself by signing the contract.
The government is not going to enforce this by sending soldiers to break your fingers if you type a bad review on ihatemydentist.com. The contract is a civil matter, and you will be sued in civil court. There is no government infringement of your rights anywhere in the vicinity of this concept.
A letter from the hospital's council is likely to have the same effect on many people, contract or not. The presence of an unenforceable contract isn't really a game changer.
Seriously, why are people so worried about this? Do you intend to sign the contact with "Anonymous Coward on Slashdot". The doctor needs to demonstrate the material to take down is indeed theirs.
The contract sounds horrendous but is almost completely unenforceable.
Thanks a lot. You posted this in jest, but this exact EULA is now hanging in my dentist's office.
It would be unenforceable. You would have been forced to sign under duress to seek potentially life saving treatment, if you were able to sign at all.
Not if you intend to treat a broken wrist.
This type of thing should be illegal.
Why? it is a voluntary contact. Yes, it is stupid. That just means you need to find a new doctor.
First thing wrong is it hampers someones right to free speech.
No, it doesn't. Again, a voluntary contract. Your speech is only limited if you sign the contract - just like a Non Disclosure Agreement.
The Constitution says the government cannot infringe on your right to free speech. You can certainly enter into a contract to limit your speech. That is exactly what Non Disclosure Agreements are.
Bob and a duck walk into a bar. The bartender says "We don't serve quacks in here". The duck turns to leave, and the bartender says "no, the duck can stay - it is that quack pretending to be a doctor that has to leave".
As this is a fairly large tube, they should all fit just fine, especially if the go in brain-first.
You realize he was talking about Congress, right?
No, but I'll be sure to read all about it on Sunday.
It is that boring old argument about correlation != causality.
I'm not arguing that reducing CFCs and other emissions is a bad thing, but when emotions and political leanings enter the argument it is far to often to emerge wrong, not matter how right one may be.
Great plan, except you are one generation away from having no one capable of creating new algorithms for computers. If one cannot do it, one cannot tell the computer how to do it.
Innovative doesn't mean never done before. If you can do the same old thing better such as that it completely replaces the same old thing, it is innovation.
What, that whole car concept is not innovative. It has four wheels. Wagons had four wheels.
I am certainly not devoted to Apple. There are several things I dislike about their products. But I do have an iPhone. Why? Because it was best in class when it came out. It was able to replace my phone and my PDA - something no other device had done adequately, much less well. The iPhone was by far better than my company issued Windows phone (don't even remember what version it was, but it was horrible). So Apple innovated by doing the same old things far better than anyone else did. I still have an iPhone all these years later because although some Android phones are pretty good, they are not good enough to make the cost of switching worthwhile. Why? Because even with the shortcomings of Apple's app store, developers have managed to create some apps that I regularly use.
I use a Windows 7 laptop too, if you really want to hate.
...Slashdot community...
From dictionary.com
group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists
And yes, it is funny.
+1 Proves The Point.
It is funny to see how the Slashdot community loves to bash Apple and those that use Apple products. Read some of the comment threads bashing MS and singing the praises of [insert alternate OS here] or hyping Android over iOS.
It is easy to see the fault in others, but a more difficult proposition when looking in the mirror.