I tend to find the opposite. People spout theory, but have to be told "but, in the real world, it doesn't work that way." Go talk shop with an economics major, and you'll see what I mean.
Your deifnitions of "arrested" and "attempt to arrest" are misguided. If a single cop defies the law, and cuffs you, and takes you to a holding cell, and books you, you've been arrested. The fact that he may have went against the law does nothing for you during that moment in time. You've been arrested, though it was an illegal arrest.
The officer in question never identified his reason for asking, and the ruling stands. So, you need to read up on the facts of the case, and not just the little linked article.
That's actually the exact subject of the case. Hiibel continued to ask if he was suspected of some crime, and the officer refused to say (actual quote: "I'm investigating an investigation."). He just kept demanding his ID. If the officer had made clear the reason he was asking for the ID, things may have been different, but, not only will we never know that, but we'll not get a chance to see a similar situation under the new decision.
After reading that article more, it doesn't seem that this is definitely true. It was an allegation by Moore's agent. And the allegation wasn't the Jeb threatened them with taxes, but that Eisner was worried they might lose tax breaks (which is conceiveable if it was somehow leveraged that Disney was becoming a PAC of some sort, which hold certian restrictions). After he lied about other things, why would you believe him on this? Seem like a desperate man, clawing at straws.
Well, being a person who likes to point out wrongs when they happen, and not being a person who likes to rile ppl up just to get a sympathetic ear, I would have brought this to ppl's attention when I was told it wasn't going to get distributed (i.e. a year ago). But Moore doesn't work that way - he doesn't care if you have actually thought things through, he just wants to rile you up, against his enemies.
Disney's stance is that they don't want to be involved in such a political film, especially in a voting year (and, from my POV, who would blame them, they get boycotted enough as it is). This argument, re: corruption, is that Disney is keeping this down to aid the Bush campaign. This wouldn't have fit into Moore's plan a year ago (i.e. a non-voting year). So, who's doing more propagandizing?
Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.
To set the record straight, again: Moore admitted that this was a publicity stunt (through a slip-up, not intentionally).
Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.
To set the record straight: Moore admitted that this was a publicity stunt (through a slip-up, not intentionally).
There's a chance they actually couldn't ping. At my university almost everything you could do from a console, except pine and ls was blocked. No ping, no finger, nothing useful. Just pine.
I'm pretty sure the movie theater didn't build their own jammer. It was store bought, just as many radar jammers are (and which are illegal in many US states). I don't remeber there being a clause in the FCC rules ot allow for it, since it was a 'method of interfering with communications' - not unlike the compliance notice on the bottom of many electronics.
A few years ago, during the dotBoom, I was looking for a summer job/internship in the marketing area of IT. I went on one interview where they were looking for me to go on BBS', and in chat rooms, and front their product, as if I were a satisfied user. This would be my job, 8 hours a day, just running around the 'Net looking for ways to infiltrate the masses and say how good their product was.
I didn't get the job, b/c I think they could tell I wasn't happy with their idea during the interview.
Aren't cell-phone jammers ilelgal in the US? I remember a movie theater losing a case after implementing a jammer in their theaters - and that was a _good_ and _reasonable_ idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to find the opposite. People spout theory, but have to be told "but, in the real world, it doesn't work that way." Go talk shop with an economics major, and you'll see what I mean.
-bZj
El Reg says he was 84 (having been born in 1920). Six years is a significant difference, even when you're closer to 100 than 50.
-bZj
Eh, screwed again. CA born and raised, and pondering a move to GA.
-bZj
"Stuff that matters."
-bZj
Nice sig.
Any linkage to show which states this ruling may affect?
-bZj
Your deifnitions of "arrested" and "attempt to arrest" are misguided. If a single cop defies the law, and cuffs you, and takes you to a holding cell, and books you, you've been arrested. The fact that he may have went against the law does nothing for you during that moment in time. You've been arrested, though it was an illegal arrest.
-bZj
From his point fo view, he was, since the officer refused to give any reason for asking for the ID. Watch the video.
-bZj
The officer in question never identified his reason for asking, and the ruling stands. So, you need to read up on the facts of the case, and not just the little linked article.
-bZj
That's actually the exact subject of the case. Hiibel continued to ask if he was suspected of some crime, and the officer refused to say (actual quote: "I'm investigating an investigation."). He just kept demanding his ID. If the officer had made clear the reason he was asking for the ID, things may have been different, but, not only will we never know that, but we'll not get a chance to see a similar situation under the new decision.
-bZj
BFD?
You got stuck with a BigBrother country, so you wish that bane upon us all? Way uncool, dude.
-bZj
If you maybe shared a name with a known criminal, and were tired of being harrassed?
If you have committed a crime yourself (and are thus protected from self-incrimination by the 5th Ammendment).
If you refuse to cooperate with a jerk of an officer.
If you don't like the idea of being stopped just because you 'look suspicious'.
If you are proving the point that this is still the U.S., where we are supposed to have certain inalienable rights.
These are just off the top fo my head. I'm sure others have better thought-out situations.
Registered Republican & unhappy with our country's direction,
-bZj
Worth a shot.
You're a generous person, it seems. If ya still got some to spare, I'd like one: down8 [at] yahoo
Many thanks,
-bZj
After reading that article more, it doesn't seem that this is definitely true. It was an allegation by Moore's agent. And the allegation wasn't the Jeb threatened them with taxes, but that Eisner was worried they might lose tax breaks (which is conceiveable if it was somehow leveraged that Disney was becoming a PAC of some sort, which hold certian restrictions). After he lied about other things, why would you believe him on this? Seem like a desperate man, clawing at straws.
-bZj
Ah, I agree with that. That is deifnitely an abuse.
-bZj
Well, being a person who likes to point out wrongs when they happen, and not being a person who likes to rile ppl up just to get a sympathetic ear, I would have brought this to ppl's attention when I was told it wasn't going to get distributed (i.e. a year ago). But Moore doesn't work that way - he doesn't care if you have actually thought things through, he just wants to rile you up, against his enemies.
Disney's stance is that they don't want to be involved in such a political film, especially in a voting year (and, from my POV, who would blame them, they get boycotted enough as it is). This argument, re: corruption, is that Disney is keeping this down to aid the Bush campaign. This wouldn't have fit into Moore's plan a year ago (i.e. a non-voting year). So, who's doing more propagandizing?
-bZj
Disney's subsidiary Miramax doled out the cash, to the chagrin of Disney execs.
-bZj
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story .jsp?story=518901
To set the record straight, again: Moore admitted that this was a publicity stunt (through a slip-up, not intentionally).
-bZj
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story .jsp?story=518901
To set the record straight: Moore admitted that this was a publicity stunt (through a slip-up, not intentionally).
-bZj
Get an Indian on the phone and ask him/her to explain "synchronous" and "asynchronous" to you, then get back to us on the confusing accents.
-bZj
Strange, since most people get their dying discs back by putting them in the freezer for a bit.
-bZj
There's a chance they actually couldn't ping. At my university almost everything you could do from a console, except pine and ls was blocked. No ping, no finger, nothing useful. Just pine.
-bZj
I'm pretty sure the movie theater didn't build their own jammer. It was store bought, just as many radar jammers are (and which are illegal in many US states). I don't remeber there being a clause in the FCC rules ot allow for it, since it was a 'method of interfering with communications' - not unlike the compliance notice on the bottom of many electronics.
-bZj
Claria is spyware.
I'm still waiting for the lawsuit.
-bZj
A few years ago, during the dotBoom, I was looking for a summer job/internship in the marketing area of IT. I went on one interview where they were looking for me to go on BBS', and in chat rooms, and front their product, as if I were a satisfied user. This would be my job, 8 hours a day, just running around the 'Net looking for ways to infiltrate the masses and say how good their product was.
I didn't get the job, b/c I think they could tell I wasn't happy with their idea during the interview.
-bZj
Aren't cell-phone jammers ilelgal in the US? I remember a movie theater losing a case after implementing a jammer in their theaters - and that was a _good_ and _reasonable_ idea.
-bZj