It would've been more appropriate to publish this story on Easter Sunday. Today they should've published a story about when they took this computer offline by smashing it to bits and nailing bits of it to a tree after saying how great the world would be if everyone were nice to each other for a change.
First off how about you quote the actual statements made by the government, or the law itself, instead of interpretations that serve your position? It's like Slashdot posters referencing their own posts as a factual basis for their argument.
FTFA: "Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying â" that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. "
So yes, in a sense that's exactly what Obama and his team are arguing. Arguing that you cannot ever sue the government for breaking a given law sets a precedent that you can't ever sue them for breaking any laws.
I think the problem is that you didn't go to the NYT homepage (and see the ads there) before going to the article page (to see the ads there). So while Google is sending you to a page full of ads, you're still bypassing a different page full of ads. If Google (and other aggregators) weren't bypassing the homepages of newspapers, they would (theoretically, at least) get twice the revenue from each visitor.
The problem with this thinking is that the newspapers are failing to realize they are getting visits from people who do not normally visit their site. They should view this as a source of new potential customers, and market themselves accordingly. By checking the Referrer header in each request, they can add snippets to their news articles ("Welcome Google News Readers!", or "If you think Slashdot is cool, check out our Tech section", or some other variant). This is a golden opportunity for newspapers to extend their audience, and they're blowing it completely.
He was either editor or president of the Harvard Law Review (I forget which, it's an unimportant distinction for this argument). He also worked as a Constitutional attorney for a number of years. When it comes to legal matters and sealing court records, I find it nearly impossible to believe he is an idiot.
Which means he's a corrupt jerk little or no better than Bush, of course.
The guy was, at best, running an ongoing campaign of character assassination against certain Phoenix police officers.
No, at best he was exposing corruption in a large police force. At worst, he was doing what you alleged. But even if he were, that's not harassment, it's libel, and he could've been sued by the officers in question.
Maybe he tried to give evidence to the DA and/or Internal Affairs, and got nowhere. So he did the other thing that's traditional in our democracy: he shed light on the abuses with the power of the written word. That's not a crime, and it's certainly obstruction of justice.
Besides which, no one, and I mean no one, is obligated to turn over evidence of a crime unless and until they are asked by the police or subpoenaed to do so. If you can cite something that proves otherwise, I'll move out of this country within the year. I will not live in a nation that forces people to testify against their neighbor or face prison themselves. That's something the Soviets and Nazis did to their populace, we shouldn't live in fear of the same.
OK, so this is guilty of whatever the police say because of the politics of one of the news organizations that reports on the case? How does that make a lick of sense.
Who says his claims are "unsubstantiated"? If they are, the PD can sue him for libel. Since they chose not to, it seems they feel most (or all) of what he's had to say is 100% true.
One of the problems with the new moderation system. In the old days, your moderation wasn't done until you hit the submit button at the end. With the on-select "feature", it's easy to mismod a post. Really wish they'd do something about that. Maybe add a button next to the moderation to actually do the job.
Because there's a difference between you bringing porn on the plane and the airline making it available to you. In both you might be prosecuted, but only in one can they be sued for sexual harassment or contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
I was going to reply with much of what you've said in your post. So I'll just say "this" and leave it to the moderators to mod your post and the GP down.
From my point of view, the entire universe will simply cease to exist when I die.
But don't you want other people to know you existed after you've gone? Personally, I want my children's children's children to know about me, my life and times, and maybe learn something from my example. Whether that's something good to do or something to avoid will be up to them to decide, of course.
Oh, I don't know. I think I would trust one to misinterpret the laws in a way that creates conflict and drama, leading to revelations about the human condition.
Of course, 50 years later another robot (possibly from Southern California) would misinterpret the laws in much the same way, except this time there'd be a love interest involved in some way.
Seriously, the populace would be far better served by figuring out what indigenous creatures prey on the mosquitoes, and encouraging their habitat. If there aren't any, carefully try an introduction of bats / birds.
Yes, because history is completely lacking in examples of the bad things that can happen when foreign species are introduced to an environment.
Oh, and while Bush lied many times, it was never under oath, so not directly applicable to this situation. Besides, it would be obvious what you would think of those lies, so there's no point asking about them.
When a cop lies about a case, there's someone else's welfare at stake. When Clinton lied about a blowjob, it was no one else's business and no one's welfare was at stake. The entire purpose of the line of questioning he was subjected to was purely political, of no legal consequence and aimed at finding ANYTHING they could regardless of relevance. It was a complete mockery of America and the justice system.
Incorrect. It was asked to establish a pattern of behavior. Eg, did he have a habit of using his authority to get laid? He was being sued for sexual harassment, whether or not he'd had other office affairs is a legitimate line of inquiry and would be asked of any other defendant in the same situation.
It's a delicate balance indeed, but public figures should expect just a bit more scrutiny.
I definitely agree with you that cops who lie should be fired and prosecuted for perjury. But I'm curious if you felt the same way when a past President lied to a judge in a civil rights trial? Or was that OK because it was "just sex"?
Slashdot Mirror
It would've been more appropriate to publish this story on Easter Sunday. Today they should've published a story about when they took this computer offline by smashing it to bits and nailing bits of it to a tree after saying how great the world would be if everyone were nice to each other for a change.
First off how about you quote the actual statements made by the government, or the law itself, instead of interpretations that serve your position? It's like Slashdot posters referencing their own posts as a factual basis for their argument.
Why should I? You never did.
FTFA: "Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying â" that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes. "
So yes, in a sense that's exactly what Obama and his team are arguing. Arguing that you cannot ever sue the government for breaking a given law sets a precedent that you can't ever sue them for breaking any laws.
Taking ideas from other mediums and rehashing them for the screen is different from rehashing old movies how exactly?
I think the problem is that you didn't go to the NYT homepage (and see the ads there) before going to the article page (to see the ads there). So while Google is sending you to a page full of ads, you're still bypassing a different page full of ads. If Google (and other aggregators) weren't bypassing the homepages of newspapers, they would (theoretically, at least) get twice the revenue from each visitor.
The problem with this thinking is that the newspapers are failing to realize they are getting visits from people who do not normally visit their site. They should view this as a source of new potential customers, and market themselves accordingly. By checking the Referrer header in each request, they can add snippets to their news articles ("Welcome Google News Readers!", or "If you think Slashdot is cool, check out our Tech section", or some other variant). This is a golden opportunity for newspapers to extend their audience, and they're blowing it completely.
He was either editor or president of the Harvard Law Review (I forget which, it's an unimportant distinction for this argument). He also worked as a Constitutional attorney for a number of years. When it comes to legal matters and sealing court records, I find it nearly impossible to believe he is an idiot.
Which means he's a corrupt jerk little or no better than Bush, of course.
The guy was, at best, running an ongoing campaign of character assassination against certain Phoenix police officers.
No, at best he was exposing corruption in a large police force. At worst, he was doing what you alleged. But even if he were, that's not harassment, it's libel, and he could've been sued by the officers in question.
Maybe he tried to give evidence to the DA and/or Internal Affairs, and got nowhere. So he did the other thing that's traditional in our democracy: he shed light on the abuses with the power of the written word. That's not a crime, and it's certainly obstruction of justice.
Besides which, no one, and I mean no one, is obligated to turn over evidence of a crime unless and until they are asked by the police or subpoenaed to do so. If you can cite something that proves otherwise, I'll move out of this country within the year. I will not live in a nation that forces people to testify against their neighbor or face prison themselves. That's something the Soviets and Nazis did to their populace, we shouldn't live in fear of the same.
OK, so this is guilty of whatever the police say because of the politics of one of the news organizations that reports on the case? How does that make a lick of sense.
Who says his claims are "unsubstantiated"? If they are, the PD can sue him for libel. Since they chose not to, it seems they feel most (or all) of what he's had to say is 100% true.
Wow. I actually had to remove a Friend from my list just to make room for you as a foe. Thanks a lot, jerk.
One of the problems with the new moderation system. In the old days, your moderation wasn't done until you hit the submit button at the end. With the on-select "feature", it's easy to mismod a post. Really wish they'd do something about that. Maybe add a button next to the moderation to actually do the job.
Because there's a difference between you bringing porn on the plane and the airline making it available to you. In both you might be prosecuted, but only in one can they be sued for sexual harassment or contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
So does this mean that all those Muslims out there who say that other religions are false have the STFU now?
Guess those geniuses at the UN have never heard the phrase "unintended consequences".
I was going to reply with much of what you've said in your post. So I'll just say "this" and leave it to the moderators to mod your post and the GP down.
From my point of view, the entire universe will simply cease to exist when I die.
But don't you want other people to know you existed after you've gone? Personally, I want my children's children's children to know about me, my life and times, and maybe learn something from my example. Whether that's something good to do or something to avoid will be up to them to decide, of course.
Oh, I don't know. I think I would trust one to misinterpret the laws in a way that creates conflict and drama, leading to revelations about the human condition.
Of course, 50 years later another robot (possibly from Southern California) would misinterpret the laws in much the same way, except this time there'd be a love interest involved in some way.
Home schooling fucks up your social skills.
As opposed to the public schools that turn out bullies and miscreants?
A pen is a much more dangerous weapon than that. Strangely, you're also allowed to bring them on airplanes.
I've heard that pens are even more dangerous than swords. Though that might just be an old wives' tale.
Seriously, the populace would be far better served by figuring out what indigenous creatures prey on the mosquitoes, and encouraging their habitat. If there aren't any, carefully try an introduction of bats / birds.
Yes, because history is completely lacking in examples of the bad things that can happen when foreign species are introduced to an environment.
As my son's fifth grade math textbook points out, that's an irregular fraction and should not be confused with an actual fraction.
You might want to avoid going on a certain gameshow.
Oh, and while Bush lied many times, it was never under oath, so not directly applicable to this situation. Besides, it would be obvious what you would think of those lies, so there's no point asking about them.
When a cop lies about a case, there's someone else's welfare at stake. When Clinton lied about a blowjob, it was no one else's business and no one's welfare was at stake. The entire purpose of the line of questioning he was subjected to was purely political, of no legal consequence and aimed at finding ANYTHING they could regardless of relevance. It was a complete mockery of America and the justice system.
Incorrect. It was asked to establish a pattern of behavior. Eg, did he have a habit of using his authority to get laid? He was being sued for sexual harassment, whether or not he'd had other office affairs is a legitimate line of inquiry and would be asked of any other defendant in the same situation.
It's a delicate balance indeed, but public figures should expect just a bit more scrutiny.
I definitely agree with you that cops who lie should be fired and prosecuted for perjury. But I'm curious if you felt the same way when a past President lied to a judge in a civil rights trial? Or was that OK because it was "just sex"?
Besides which, comparing Chicago politicians to monkeys isn't fair to the monkeys. They don't eat their young nearly as often as Shy Town pols.
Don't use Java or PHP. Duh.
And you know why the kittens are missing: they've all been killed over the years thanks to the "love lives" of Slashdot readers.