If a significant majority goes along with this we could end up with most employers asking for passwords. It's the same with drug testing. If people refused to degrade themselves and pee into a cup maybe the majority of employers wouldn't be doing this. And, since the US doesn't have any sort of safety net, for a lot of people this is a choice between personal degradation and poverty. How are we even considered a 1st world country any more with these standards of living?
Well, unfortunately for you (and the rest of us), the Democrats and Republicans both agree the government should tell you exactly what you can and cannot do with your own body.
how about this version: "You can't always work within the law against murderers who in no way respect the law. If we always work within the law THEN murders would happen more often than you might think. Use some common sense here."
Maybe you should use some common sense yourself, idiot.
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause. It's not very clear. It looks like "General Welfare", within the 1900s gradually grew to include more and more things. Fits in very nicely with the expansion of federal power in other areas over our history.
These quotes are also interesting
The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:
James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause,asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[9][10]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[11] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[12]
Personally, I think only Madison's interpretation fits in with the rest of the document. Otherwise congress can arbitrarily grant themselves new powers without an amendment. What's the point of the amendment process if you can just say "General Welfare". For example, "for the general welfare we enact an income tax". No, they passed an amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If its so much bullshit can you please explain why the judge has ruled in the way that they have?
Because it's a judge, it has to rule based on law. People are mad at the entire system and want the laws changed or eliminated. Don't see how what the judge does or does not think would really matter to someone who takes issue with the current patent system.
People seem to be focusing on Apple because they're in the news a lot and they're going after companies people don't hate such as Google. Other patent stuff doesn't seem to get as much negative publicity.
News to me. Has it been publicly confirmed anywhere else that this goes on? Sure, it was always a good guess but still, even from this article it's not clear they're just going through private content on a whim. It sounds like it needs to be flagged first so I guess the other lesson is choose better "friends".
Bullshit. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.
Applies to your entire post.
If you put the phone on your lap you're still going to be picked up by the police.
How do you expect that to work? Can the cops see your lap or where your eyes are?
By your rationale, murder laws make it harder for people to murder, so it makes it worse.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's not necessarily right but whether he is or not depends on evidence. It's not a logical argument, it's a hypothesis that needs testing. In the case of murder, he would have to be saying: laws against murder make people more likely to murder. It really depends on the law in question. In this case, he's guessing that the people hiding their texting will cause a greater risk of accidents relative to the benefit of the people who will stop texting. Can't logically determine how all that will work out. Seems to be saying: people will mostly continue to text but now will be even more distracted to hide their phones.
Do you neocon/libertarians even get how laws work?
Do you know what words mean? Neocon != Libertarian.
If you want to live in a country with no laws, go spend some time in DRC or another war torn country, you can text to your heart's content while driving, just mind the rifles being fired at your face.
Stop making up bullshit. He didn't say he wanted to live in a country with "no laws". He was simply questioning whether this particular law would actually benefit society on average.
If a cop is legally pulling you over to simply check if you are intoxicated
Are there now states where they can pull you over with no probable cause just to check for crimes? Or did you mean sobriety checkpoints, which are basically the same thing? Glad I live in a state where they aren't illegally doing those things yet.
Terrifying that there is such a thing as a "lawful order to disperse" in a public place. Basically just code for being in public when a cop finds it annoying.
Has it been explained how they just "monitor" social networking? I thought crawling the sites was against the TOS for us proles. This leaves me with some questions I haven't seen answered anywhere yet:
1) Does that mean the sites are collaborating with the government to give them an info feed? 2) Do they get access to "private" communications? 3) Are these sites legally required to collaborate like this? Seems unlikely/unconstitutional but who knows anymore.
I want to know how much blame to direct at facebook vs the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we end this madness where a hyperlink is now infringement even if you're not hosting the content?
Can we throw everyone in jail who believes people should be punished over non-objective criteria and concepts?
If a significant majority goes along with this we could end up with most employers asking for passwords. It's the same with drug testing. If people refused to degrade themselves and pee into a cup maybe the majority of employers wouldn't be doing this. And, since the US doesn't have any sort of safety net, for a lot of people this is a choice between personal degradation and poverty. How are we even considered a 1st world country any more with these standards of living?
Well, unfortunately for you (and the rest of us), the Democrats and Republicans both agree the government should tell you exactly what you can and cannot do with your own body.
how about this version: "You can't always work within the law against murderers who in no way respect the law. If we always work within the law THEN murders would happen more often than you might think. Use some common sense here."
Maybe you should use some common sense yourself, idiot.
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause. It's not very clear. It looks like "General Welfare", within the 1900s gradually grew to include more and more things. Fits in very nicely with the expansion of federal power in other areas over our history.
These quotes are also interesting
The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:
James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause,asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[9][10]
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[11] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[12]
Personally, I think only Madison's interpretation fits in with the rest of the document. Otherwise congress can arbitrarily grant themselves new powers without an amendment. What's the point of the amendment process if you can just say "General Welfare". For example, "for the general welfare we enact an income tax". No, they passed an amendment.
It should be considered treason if it isn't already.
Most violations should also fall under civil rights abuse laws.
You should probably look up what Sanskrit is and how long it was in use.
Bias is where all our laws come from these days. We could at least start listening to more than one side.
That was a school BOMBING. Also it was by a non-student,
Andrew Kehoe, 55
The op was talking about students + guns and how this didn't result in shootings.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Students have limited rights when it comes to the first amendment in the U.S.
Not according to the constitution. Sure, some senile old lawyers went along with it but that doesn't make them right.
If its so much bullshit can you please explain why the judge has ruled in the way that they have?
Because it's a judge, it has to rule based on law. People are mad at the entire system and want the laws changed or eliminated. Don't see how what the judge does or does not think would really matter to someone who takes issue with the current patent system.
People seem to be focusing on Apple because they're in the news a lot and they're going after companies people don't hate such as Google. Other patent stuff doesn't seem to get as much negative publicity.
The patent system promotes innovation to society's benefit by ensuring that inventors reap the rewards of their efforts.
That's what's under debate here, don't go assuming it.
Naked 'private parts' including female nipple bulges
male nipples are ok
There's gotta be some way to genocide all the Puritans ...
News to me. Has it been publicly confirmed anywhere else that this goes on? Sure, it was always a good guess but still, even from this article it's not clear they're just going through private content on a whim. It sounds like it needs to be flagged first so I guess the other lesson is choose better "friends".
Also, neither libertarians nor neocons believe we should have "no laws".
Bullshit. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.
Applies to your entire post.
If you put the phone on your lap you're still going to be picked up by the police.
How do you expect that to work? Can the cops see your lap or where your eyes are?
By your rationale, murder laws make it harder for people to murder, so it makes it worse.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's not necessarily right but whether he is or not depends on evidence. It's not a logical argument, it's a hypothesis that needs testing. In the case of murder, he would have to be saying: laws against murder make people more likely to murder.
It really depends on the law in question. In this case, he's guessing that the people hiding their texting will cause a greater risk of accidents relative to the benefit of the people who will stop texting. Can't logically determine how all that will work out. Seems to be saying: people will mostly continue to text but now will be even more distracted to hide their phones.
Do you neocon/libertarians even get how laws work?
Do you know what words mean? Neocon != Libertarian.
If you want to live in a country with no laws, go spend some time in DRC or another war torn country, you can text to your heart's content while driving, just mind the rifles being fired at your face.
Stop making up bullshit. He didn't say he wanted to live in a country with "no laws". He was simply questioning whether this particular law would actually benefit society on average.
If a cop is legally pulling you over to simply check if you are intoxicated
Are there now states where they can pull you over with no probable cause just to check for crimes? Or did you mean sobriety checkpoints, which are basically the same thing? Glad I live in a state where they aren't illegally doing those things yet.
Terrifying that there is such a thing as a "lawful order to disperse" in a public place. Basically just code for being in public when a cop finds it annoying.
Has it been explained how they just "monitor" social networking? I thought crawling the sites was against the TOS for us proles. This leaves me with some questions I haven't seen answered anywhere yet:
1) Does that mean the sites are collaborating with the government to give them an info feed?
2) Do they get access to "private" communications?
3) Are these sites legally required to collaborate like this? Seems unlikely/unconstitutional but who knows anymore.
I want to know how much blame to direct at facebook vs the government.
It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.
Why? What on earth could you have against wolves? We have millions of stupid humans infesting the place and you're worried about a few more wolves?
And then you will be in jail, congratulations.
Interesting, thanks for the answer. Hadn't looked at it that way before.