But not within the constitution. Yes, I know the Supreme Court made a ridiculous ruling, but we've seen that more than a few times. The ruling in the 'fire in a crowded theater' case that lots of people seem to love referring to, for instance, was used to arrest war protestors; the Supreme Court can, does, and has come to ridiculous conclusions.
If the only way out is a popular uprising, we're doomed. Most people simply don't want to do that; they can't even work up the courage to stop voting for the two major parties, and that takes virtually no effort at all.
Well, I think the Supreme Court was wrong. Under that logic, the government can do and spy on anyone it wants as long as it gets corporate thugs to agree to give them the data, and is that really where we want to be?
Whether or not you agree with it and whether or not it has any logic are totally orthogonal.
Well, I agree. But to say it's logical would just be foolhardy. I don't believe it's necessary for someone to delude him/herself into believing such things are logical.
Nope, FB can say that so and so signed up and posted stuff... but they cant say what it was since the minors own the copyright and *cant enter into a contract* to allow FB to repost it.
So minors can own copyright, but they can't enter into contracts? Well, that makes complete sense...
In the real world, judges tend to frown upon people exploiting technicalities like that and rule against them regardless.
In the real world, judges try to exploit technicalities to allow the government to get around the constitution, or sometimes just pretend it doesn't exist. Like, for instance, the TSA, the NSA (that crappy secret court), and that 'fire in a crowded theater' case people love citing so much.
Another lame excuse? No. There is a lot of illogical technicalities and corruption in law, and politicians and judges constantly try to get around the constitution by engaging in newspeak. They did this with the TSA and free speech zones, and they're trying to do this with the NSA. If you think there's a lot of logical thought put into this garbage, I can only hang my head in shame.
Various studies show that every hour of television watched per day by children under age five meaningfully contributes to a rise in the likelihood of that child being a bully, and negatively correlates to the child's executive function (self discipline) as measured on the cookie test (sit a child down in front of a cookie or other treat and tell them not to take it, with the possibility of some reward if they do not, and then leave the room and see how long until they take it).
Yeah, yeah; more studies that have little to do with the real world and probably haven't even been replicated. And I asked how likely it is to harm them, and to what degree. I don't care about cookie tests in the least.
Executive function correlates with academic success more than IQ
Not that IQ or academic success impresses me; I'm much more impressed by actual innovation.
"Harm" doesn't have to mean that playing GTA is going to inspire a kid to join a gang or go on a shooting spree.
So whatever effects it has, if any, are probably minor. In that case, they're likely inconsequential.
The problem I have is not that scientific studies are conducted; the problem I have is that I just know idiots will use the results to restrict people's freedoms if the results swing in their favor. That's a problem with pieces of trash that take on a human shape, though, and not the studies.
Also, while one kid's innocence is not relevant to the rest of society, one single kid's innocence is NOT ambiguous or meaningless to the kid and his future self.
It isn't something that's well-defined. I've never seen anyone define it in a way that makes sense to me, and every time someone's tried to tell me that something takes their children's innocence away, a question mark appeared over my head.
I just read his comment again, and that does not seem to be the case.
But even if that is true, it doesn't seem very intelligent to me to speculate such a thing every time someone disagrees with you about certain issues. I don't think it has any place in a rational debate.
Slashdot Mirror
As a Gmail user I'm perfectly fine knowing that Google reads my mail and potentially shares that info with the Government.
Then you are a naive fool and are part of the problem.
By my cock, your ass is now a cum faucet!
Hey, if someone wants to take this garbage, who am I to stop them? I'd say it's a decent way to get rid of a few imbeciles.
Well, they were unconstitutional, but that didn't stop them.
But not within the constitution. Yes, I know the Supreme Court made a ridiculous ruling, but we've seen that more than a few times. The ruling in the 'fire in a crowded theater' case that lots of people seem to love referring to, for instance, was used to arrest war protestors; the Supreme Court can, does, and has come to ridiculous conclusions.
If the only way out is a popular uprising, we're doomed. Most people simply don't want to do that; they can't even work up the courage to stop voting for the two major parties, and that takes virtually no effort at all.
Well, I think the Supreme Court was wrong. Under that logic, the government can do and spy on anyone it wants as long as it gets corporate thugs to agree to give them the data, and is that really where we want to be?
Get used to it.
No, and that sounds like a terrible idea.
I agree that it happens more often with legislators, but some judges do tend to try to find 'creative' ways around the constitution.
Whether or not you agree with it and whether or not it has any logic are totally orthogonal.
Well, I agree. But to say it's logical would just be foolhardy. I don't believe it's necessary for someone to delude him/herself into believing such things are logical.
And emergency laws should last 3 months.
I believe some "emergency laws" shouldn't exist for any period of time; namely ones that violate people's rights (e.g. the USA PATRIOT ACT).
Nope, FB can say that so and so signed up and posted stuff... but they cant say what it was since the minors own the copyright and *cant enter into a contract* to allow FB to repost it.
So minors can own copyright, but they can't enter into contracts? Well, that makes complete sense...
In the real world, judges tend to frown upon people exploiting technicalities like that and rule against them regardless.
In the real world, judges try to exploit technicalities to allow the government to get around the constitution, or sometimes just pretend it doesn't exist. Like, for instance, the TSA, the NSA (that crappy secret court), and that 'fire in a crowded theater' case people love citing so much.
Another lame excuse? No. There is a lot of illogical technicalities and corruption in law, and politicians and judges constantly try to get around the constitution by engaging in newspeak. They did this with the TSA and free speech zones, and they're trying to do this with the NSA. If you think there's a lot of logical thought put into this garbage, I can only hang my head in shame.
Techies don't understand legal reasoning or the law.
No one with a brain does.
It has been shown that media has an effect, and it has also been shown that the effect is something most would consider harmful.
Would most find it harmful? Does that matter? But how often does it happen, and to what degree?
Furthermore, while I only cited the link between executive function and academic success, it is correlated with many more measures of overall success.
I just took that as an opportunity to bash the education system and the notion that IQ is all that important; that's all.
Various studies show that every hour of television watched per day by children under age five meaningfully contributes to a rise in the likelihood of that child being a bully, and negatively correlates to the child's executive function (self discipline) as measured on the cookie test (sit a child down in front of a cookie or other treat and tell them not to take it, with the possibility of some reward if they do not, and then leave the room and see how long until they take it).
Yeah, yeah; more studies that have little to do with the real world and probably haven't even been replicated. And I asked how likely it is to harm them, and to what degree. I don't care about cookie tests in the least.
Executive function correlates with academic success more than IQ
Not that IQ or academic success impresses me; I'm much more impressed by actual innovation.
It's 14:07; time to rummage through your soiled undies!
Into a juicy graveyard we go! Now who's bootyass process, invisible entity licking its chops? I am!
Why are you not generally a fan of the ACLU?
I don't think this will stop stupid young people from texting
What about stupid old people? Will it stop them?
The NSA is hardly the biggest threat to your privacy and they're probably not the most dangerous.
The government having access to all this information is very dangerous, and I think people would do well to stop downplaying this threat.
"Harm" doesn't have to mean that playing GTA is going to inspire a kid to join a gang or go on a shooting spree.
So whatever effects it has, if any, are probably minor. In that case, they're likely inconsequential.
The problem I have is not that scientific studies are conducted; the problem I have is that I just know idiots will use the results to restrict people's freedoms if the results swing in their favor. That's a problem with pieces of trash that take on a human shape, though, and not the studies.
Also, while one kid's innocence is not relevant to the rest of society, one single kid's innocence is NOT ambiguous or meaningless to the kid and his future self.
It isn't something that's well-defined. I've never seen anyone define it in a way that makes sense to me, and every time someone's tried to tell me that something takes their children's innocence away, a question mark appeared over my head.
I just read his comment again, and that does not seem to be the case.
But even if that is true, it doesn't seem very intelligent to me to speculate such a thing every time someone disagrees with you about certain issues. I don't think it has any place in a rational debate.