No, it does not "beat" the purpose of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press does not give the press the right to lie. Journalists, who are supposed to be objective and factual need to be licensed "to avoid customers getting duped by fraudsters" who lie and report only those facts which support the columnists personal views, even if the columnist is wrong.
The biggest thing you miss is that one could still write and publish, but one would not be a Journalist with it's attendant protections.
If a group is going to be a protected group, that group needs to be well defined. By and large, bloggers are not journalists. Hell, a significant portion of reporters are journalists anymore, they are just columnists who don't deserve any respect or protection.
I am beginning to think that the profession of Journalist, and all it's attendant protections, needs to be regulated and licensed just like Doctor, Lawyer, or Engineer.
There should be a body, like the Bar, which sets out how one becomes a journalist, what rules a journalist must follow, journalistic standards, and the ethics that must be followed. The body would set the entry requirements, investigate claims of unethical behavior or rule breaking, and even decide if one's work is up to journalistic standards. It would have the power to remove one's Journalist designation. It would be made up of other, recognized journalists.
That would make it easier to distinguish the real journalists from the Limbaughs, O'Riellys, Stuarts, Huffingtons, and all the other columnists and editorialist who don't have to be objective and factual.
While in theory it was possible for any idiot to purchase a printing press, that "idiot" would have need a large some of money, training on using it, the time to operate the press, and the money to afford the printing materials. Operating a printing press from the 1700s is not like using a computer today and laser printer today. It is not even like using a printing press today. It was time intensive, laborious work. It could take hours to typeset a single page. Printing presses were very expensive as were the typefaces. Everything was hand-made back then, remember. in the 1700s, printing wasn't something one did in ones spare time.
Today, one can declare oneself a reporter and post news. Back then, one had to earn one's living from the information one provided. If the information was wrong, one would soon find oneself with no readership. And, if one printed enough wrong information about enough people, one might find one's printing press and office destroyed by one's victims.
Back then, one could be forced to disclose sources through the courts. One could be sued and lose everything one owns by one's victims.
Back then, it was very hard to anonymously reach a large audience with false information.
BTW, "truthiness" is not a word. The word you were looking for was truthfulness.
While that study investigates whether racial difference in bone density can be related to lifestyle, it says nothing about lifestyle, specifically the ability to swim, being effected by bone density.
Also, while the study discusses bone density, it does not discuss average density. If one has greater bone density and a higher percentage of body fat, then it is quite conceivable for the two to cancel each other out or even for the added buoyancy of the body fat to be greater than the effect of the increased bone density.
Actually, the reason many black people, or at least black Americans, can't swim is because they never learned how because many black people live in areas with few swimming pools, public or private. Inner city neighborhoods have a very high ratio of people to pools. Rural areas, especially poor rural areas, have few pools. The suburbs have many pools, but not so many black people. But, many of the black people in the suburbs know how to swim.
Also, because many older black people can't swim, they can not teach their children to swim, resulting in a need to pay for swimming classes which may be prohibitively expensive.
When I went into bootcamp for the Navy, we had small group of black guys who could swim before they joined. The rest had to learn while in bootcamp. All of them learned and learned well.
If you are suggesting that Apple sue for copyright infringement, the Verizon Wireless ads are clearly a parody of the Apple ads and thus fall under fair use.
If you are suggesting something along the lines of a trademark suit, the phrases are different.
The only thing about this that is "news" is that stupid people are once again reject evidence and reality. It is always the same thing:
I have fifty anecdotes and these two things happen in concert, so one must be causing the other. It doesn't matter what science or statistics say because I believe it so it must be true.
The judge ruled that the warrant can be served on the third party without notifying the sender. This would be akin to serving a warrant to one's employer to search one's workspace.
Or, serving a warrant on your friend to access your friend's computer to get emails sent by you.
I think this ruling is on shaky ground due to the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Study Suggests U.S. Could Use Fewer, Not More Science Students* *The headline of this story has been changed, see note at end. by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
B. Lindsay Lowella Harold Salzmanb,c Hamutal Bernsteina Everett Hendersonc a Institute for the Study of International Migration, Georgetown University B. Lindsay Lowell: lowellbl@georgetown.edu b Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University & c The Urban Institute Hal Salzman: HSalzman@Rutgers.edu
in a study published by the Institute for the Study of International Migration.
My "Dream", aka the G1, is not tied to any particular carrier, does not have a service contract, and does not have a "new every 2" plan. I bought it outright and called T-Mobile to unlock it.
at the end of that day I'll still be right and you'll still be speaking out of your ass
Says the person who can't even get publicly available numbers for the cost of the war right. Your flaming ignorance and incompetence is evidence of your true character. You just make up numbers and expect everyone to believe them, and when you are proven wrong, you resort to insults.
You were wrong, you are wrong, and you will continue to be wrong, little troll.
What's the matter, little troll boy? Does your pussy hurt when reality is put in your face so you have to throw out insults? Well I can do it too, pussyboy.
For the federal government Amendment 10 of the Constitution of the United State of America:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
No where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to establish colleges and universities, which means that power is reserved for the individual states.
That is what is known as a false dilemma. How about if Billy joins the military and gets training and the G.I. Bill? Or, maybe Billy apprentices at a trade. Or, maybe Billy goes to community college. Or, Billy does any number of other things.
Billy can become a journeyman electrician in five years or less. Billy can become an auto mechanic. Billy can do many things and earn good money without taking out a huge loan.
Billy may very well have no choice in the matter of actually going to college. Life isn't fair, and it is not the government's job to make life fair. Oh, and my local state university's 4 year cost is about $40K, not $80K. And, I know lots of working students.
I suggest you take a look at the numbers. Even the smallest bill being bandied about in Congress is over $700 billion dollars a year. That doesn't include a "public option" or any of the other really expensive bits.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain how revealing private information to the general public would be fair considering the information requested will not be made public.
Or, are you using some strange definition of "fair"?
Since when are lists of readers or subscribers protected information, specifically protect from revelation through subpoena?
No, it does not "beat" the purpose of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press does not give the press the right to lie. Journalists, who are supposed to be objective and factual need to be licensed "to avoid customers getting duped by fraudsters" who lie and report only those facts which support the columnists personal views, even if the columnist is wrong.
The biggest thing you miss is that one could still write and publish, but one would not be a Journalist with it's attendant protections.
If a group is going to be a protected group, that group needs to be well defined. By and large, bloggers are not journalists. Hell, a significant portion of reporters are journalists anymore, they are just columnists who don't deserve any respect or protection.
I am beginning to think that the profession of Journalist, and all it's attendant protections, needs to be regulated and licensed just like Doctor, Lawyer, or Engineer.
There should be a body, like the Bar, which sets out how one becomes a journalist, what rules a journalist must follow, journalistic standards, and the ethics that must be followed. The body would set the entry requirements, investigate claims of unethical behavior or rule breaking, and even decide if one's work is up to journalistic standards. It would have the power to remove one's Journalist designation. It would be made up of other, recognized journalists.
That would make it easier to distinguish the real journalists from the Limbaughs, O'Riellys, Stuarts, Huffingtons, and all the other columnists and editorialist who don't have to be objective and factual.
Well, let us look at your contention:
BTW, "truthiness" is not a word. The word you were looking for was truthfulness.
While that study investigates whether racial difference in bone density can be related to lifestyle, it says nothing about lifestyle, specifically the ability to swim, being effected by bone density.
Also, while the study discusses bone density, it does not discuss average density. If one has greater bone density and a higher percentage of body fat, then it is quite conceivable for the two to cancel each other out or even for the added buoyancy of the body fat to be greater than the effect of the increased bone density.
Actually, the reason many black people, or at least black Americans, can't swim is because they never learned how because many black people live in areas with few swimming pools, public or private. Inner city neighborhoods have a very high ratio of people to pools. Rural areas, especially poor rural areas, have few pools. The suburbs have many pools, but not so many black people. But, many of the black people in the suburbs know how to swim.
Also, because many older black people can't swim, they can not teach their children to swim, resulting in a need to pay for swimming classes which may be prohibitively expensive.
When I went into bootcamp for the Navy, we had small group of black guys who could swim before they joined. The rest had to learn while in bootcamp. All of them learned and learned well.
If you are suggesting that Apple sue for copyright infringement, the Verizon Wireless ads are clearly a parody of the Apple ads and thus fall under fair use.
If you are suggesting something along the lines of a trademark suit, the phrases are different.
What else is left for grounds for a lawsuit?
The only thing about this that is "news" is that stupid people are once again reject evidence and reality. It is always the same thing:
IE 8 has already been released. Firefox has overtaken a browser that is 2 generation old.
It is a bad analogy because one has the car in one's possession, then turns it in. One never has possession of the third party servers.
The judge ruled that the warrant can be served on the third party without notifying the sender. This would be akin to serving a warrant to one's employer to search one's workspace.
Or, serving a warrant on your friend to access your friend's computer to get emails sent by you.
I think this ruling is on shaky ground due to the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Actually, they are private because there is a law saying they are private.
While you have the car in your possession, no. But, once you turn it in, yes.
And, that is a bad analogy.
in a study published by the Institute for the Study of International Migration.
Not exactly unbiased, eh?
My "Dream", aka the G1, is not tied to any particular carrier, does not have a service contract, and does not have a "new every 2" plan. I bought it outright and called T-Mobile to unlock it.
Says the person who can't even get publicly available numbers for the cost of the war right. Your flaming ignorance and incompetence is evidence of your true character. You just make up numbers and expect everyone to believe them, and when you are proven wrong, you resort to insults.
You were wrong, you are wrong, and you will continue to be wrong, little troll.
What's the matter, little troll boy? Does your pussy hurt when reality is put in your face so you have to throw out insults? Well I can do it too, pussyboy.
That is my point. The fed should not be funding tuition.
For the federal government Amendment 10 of the Constitution of the United State of America:
No where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to establish colleges and universities, which means that power is reserved for the individual states.
That is what is known as a false dilemma. How about if Billy joins the military and gets training and the G.I. Bill? Or, maybe Billy apprentices at a trade. Or, maybe Billy goes to community college. Or, Billy does any number of other things.
Billy can become a journeyman electrician in five years or less.
Billy can become an auto mechanic.
Billy can do many things and earn good money without taking out a huge loan.
Billy may very well have no choice in the matter of actually going to college. Life isn't fair, and it is not the government's job to make life fair. Oh, and my local state university's 4 year cost is about $40K, not $80K. And, I know lots of working students.
In other words, you can't show me where the government is required to provide a college education.
And those state university systems still charged their students.
I suggest you take a look at the numbers. Even the smallest bill being bandied about in Congress is over $700 billion dollars a year. That doesn't include a "public option" or any of the other really expensive bits.