To pass the strict scrutiny test, therefore, the state must demonstrate that the industry labeling standards, either alone or combined with technological controls that enable parents to limit which games their children play, do not equally address the state's interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children. The State has not demonstrated that the Act is narrowly tailored to address its purpose. Therefore, the Act cannot pass strict scrutiny.
The SEVGL requires video game retailers to place a four square-inch label with the numerals "18" on any "sexually explicit" video game.... As the State concedes, the SEVGL is a content-based restriction on speech, and we must employ strict scrutiny in assessing its constitutionality....To survive strict scrutiny, the SEVGL "must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest."... Here, the State's identified purpose is "shielding children from indecent sexual material and in assisting parents in protecting their children from that material." Governor's Br. at 16. We need not spend time determining whether this is a compelling interest; it clearly is.... Applying strict scrutiny, we cannot say that the "18" sticker is narrowly tailored to the State's goal of ensuring that parents are informed of the sexually explicit content in games. As we described above, the State has not demonstrated that it could not accomplish this goal with a broader educational campaign about the ESRB system.
We're talking about non-narrowly tailored content-based compelled speech here. Is it really that hard to follow?
I am not sure what a Southern Baptist is, I live in France where most people (including half of my family) is catholic.
This may be part of the disconnect. USian Catholics and European Catholics are fairly different. US Catholics tend to be more religiously liberal (counter-intuitively since USians tend to be religiously more conservative than Europeans in general) than Europeans. My aunt (a nun) 5-10 years ago openly thought it was time for JPII to "receive his reward" (ie die and go to heaven) largely because she felt he was too conservative theologically. US Catholics are more likely to use birth control than Protestants, more likely to view the Bible as a metaphor, religiously tolerant, etc. The idea that
The general feeling is that the Roman Catholic Church's main dogma is the "the doctrine is the truth" so if something seems to be the truth outside of the doctrine, it is dangerous and should be fought.
is not the standard at all.
Now granted, there are right-wing Catholics. But a majority of US Catholics are what the right calls "cafeteria Catholics". To say that there are portions of the church on the verge of open defiance is only a slight exaggeration. During a session with the parish priest before my goddaughter's christening, he went over many of the things that have driven people away from the church and talked about changing beliefs ("Limbo didn't make sense so we don't believe in that anymore" was the gist of some of it). There's a strong push for reform (which is not necessarily accepted by the dioceses... the priest in question was 'reassigned' and as of last summer still didn't have a position except visiting several hospitals). With the push for more conservative viewpoints from the 3rd World I actually expect a schism in my lifetime.
That doesn't mean US Catholics don't believe in Jesus or his miracles. That's pretty fundamental to being a Christian. But unthinking submission to the Church in the US (at least in the North East) was dying even before the sex abuse scandal.
An interesting idea but its a house of cards (yuck yuck)
In order to gain control of the company, Wayne encourages the company to go public. Wayne then uses probably illegal chicanery and subterfuge to buy up a majority stake in Wayne Enterprises and ousts the board and management. Already Wayne seems to be violating federal disclosure and anti-take over laws.
Thats a pretty twisted view on the Batman Begins. The IPO was initiated by Earle and Wayne was told he could not stop it. Earle's comments to the young Wayne about taking care of the company until he was old enough combined with his reference to Alfred of a large number of shares being given to the butler upon Wayne being declared dead suggest that Wayne retained majority control of the company all along and that his machinations merely prevented Earle from taking control away.
In The Dark Knight, Wayne is discovered by an M&A lawyer to be using corporate resources for his own purposes. Specifically, Bruce has converted the R&D division into a research program to create cool equipment for Batman. When the lawyer approaches Wayne's handpicked chief executive (played by Morgan Freedman) with his discoveries, the CEO intimidates him by pointing out that unmasking a guy who spends his nights beating people to a pulp is probably not a great idea.
The actual scene involves a threat to blackmail the corporation (a felony), not to be a whistle blower. Wayne's use of corporate funds is questionable, but not on its face illegal... especially in a R&D department. Its entirely possible and even likely that the Batman related research could yield gains in other fields (and it is suggested at the start of tDK that this is the case).
And of course, a "better class of criminal" the Joker refers to would not be one that stole money, but just the opposite.
Then we won't have the knowledge to understand any warnings. Linguistically modern English would not be intelligible, scientific knowledge of radiation would be insufficient and a means to communicate in a way that doesn't require immediate proximity to the very thing we're warning against mean those neo-cavement would be boned.
We should be reducing our oil dependency. Period. Full stop.
Doing irreparable damage to the ecology of ANWR for a theoretical supply of oil that at the most generous estimates would supply the US with less than 6 months of oil in 20 years is not good policy.
Here is a long picture diary of a trick to ANWR that prove you absolutely positively don't know what you're talking about. But then, I think that should be apparent given the name of Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
Drilling in ANWR would not yield significant benefits to the oil market until 2026 according to the Department of Energy.
It seems before you should tell people to get perspective, you should stop deluding yourself with homemade "facts".
A - There's no Blu-Ray 360 coming in the near future. People have fabricated "rumors" to that effect because they expect it eventually, but there's been no halfway decent information indicating it. If MS didn't announce it yesterday, it won't be coming before Xmas 08 and likely not before E3 09.
B - Did Square go PS2 exclusive because of the next generation's not yet conceived drive? FF XIII was assumed to be PS3 exclusive because the last several generations have either been PS exclusives or launched on the PS 6+ months before other consoles.
Can you get into a system that has intentionally been locked off? And can you do so in a way that you're sure won't set off any little surprises that will, say, overwrite all backups with Star Trek Furry fan fiction, change who owns which files, e-mail/post confidential medical/legal data all over the interwebs, change data in a harmful way (switch names on booking records, for instance) and/or destroy all the relevant data?
Their safest bet short term might be to not try to access the system at all really. Pull the storage media and hope its not encrypted.
Now, we have no information indicating he's good enough to pull off some kind of massive lockdown in less than three weeks (even if he had planned something like this). But while you can always get access to a system if you have physical access, that doesn't mean you can get access with zero damage to the system.
"her lawyers say that the Hudsons employed private security guards to help supervise the private party on 3 May" So? Even if that's true it doesn't prove the story wasn't essentially true. What part of "Assuming the mother is telling the truth" don't you understand? Furthermore, according to the mother there was something like 400 people at the party. How many security guards did you think they hired?
Additionally, just not being true is insufficient. Libel is very difficult to win in the US. If a newspaper asked got multiple quotes and based the story on the claims of the 'birthday girl' its almost automatically not libel by US standards.
Its patently false. There are places that the limit is ridiculous (UK its 5 w/ a parent), less strict (many places in Europe its 16) or identical to the US. Other places, alcohol can only be purchased or consumed at certain times, or not at all.
"Nanomaterials More Dangerous Than We Think" seems to directly contradict "there are inadequate data to inform quantitative risk assessments on current and emerging nanomaterials." At most it would seem "Nanomaterials May Possibly Be Dangerous"
By US standards this case would likely be tossed out.
The first story I found from the Daily Mail included getting a response from the mother, quotes from other party goers, etc
In the words of Jodie on her Bebo page after the event: 'There's so much damage and clothes stolen. A lot of broken doors. people cauight (sic) having sex.'
But the teenager seemed unrepentant about the chaos she caused, adding: 'I got punched by my mum for it and grounded until the summer. wat a a BITCH!'
Mrs Hudson, who is separated from Jodie's father, yesterday denied she had hit her daughter.... One partygoer, who said he had heard about the event from friends, said: 'Somebody said we were allowed to wreck the house because the birthday girl's parents were getting divorced.
'There were kids behaving like gangsters from a rap video, throwing stuff around and smashing things. There were chairs, tables, even a TV in the pool.'...
Mrs Hudson had been hoping to move and had put her home in the exclusive El Paraiso development on the market.
Friends said she told them: 'The place looked like a war zone. 'All the banisters have been broken. The walls are ruined, the carpets are destroyed, furniture is broken . . . It is going to take months to sort out.'
One friend said: 'Amanda is still furious with her daughter and hasn't spoken to her for days.'
Last night Mrs Hudson played down the furore. 'Jodie had up to 400 people, but she knows a lot of people,' she said.
'With a party that size you are always going to end up with some damage.'
Asked about Jodie's comments on Bebo, she said: 'I don't know what she has written on her site, and I'm not saying anything else.'
Just because the mother denies (possibly criminal, depending on how hitting her daughter occurred and what the laws are regarding serving minors alcohol over there) the report doesn't mean it was defamation or they didn't do their jobs. Maybe the quotes were made up, and maybe the pictures from the girl's blog didn't show what they seemed to (teenagers paired up in bed, passed out drunk girls, young men/teenagers carrying beer around) but we shouldn't assume that.
According to wiki in the UK
A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
The US uses a somewhat similar standard. If you've got claims by the daughter, quotes from friends of the mother, and from party goers (and these are not fabricated) then to me "due care" has probably been taken.
You make a reasonable argument on why its wrong to violate copyright. That does not mean its "stealing."
When you pirate a work, you must by definition make a new copy. That copy can only be legally produced by the copyright holder. It would make no sense to simply destroy it, and so ownership of it reverts to the one legally able to produce it in the first place. Most of the time illegally-produced copies get destroyed anyway, but that need not be the case.
In any case, you now have a copy of the software that belongs to the copyright holder. By not returning the copy to them or buying it outright, you are in fact depriving them of something: a copy to sell or otherwise do with as they will.
And so, piracy equals theft.
Possession of something that should lawfully belong to someone is not theft on its face. The means by which one takes unlawful possession indicate different crimes.
If one physically takes possession of something belonging to another person through force or stealth, this is called theft.
If one obtains property of another through a transaction that used an excess of deceit to the point that the transaction is considered invalid, this is called fraud.
If one makes a copy of media that is copyrighted without the consent of the copyright holder to an extent that is considered unlawful (one has the right to make backup copies under the fair use doctrine and until the 90s one could make copies if one did not receive financial gain from the copies), this is called copyright violation
If one purchases or otherwise obtains property in a transaction that would normally be legal, but the goods are stolen, this is called purchasing stolen goods (and is only a crime if done knowingly).
If there is a civil dispute over property ownership and the possessor of the goods is found to not be the proper owner, this is not considered theft or even a criminal matter (generally).
There are a number of other variations on the above. Simple possession of another person's rightful property does not necessarily constitute theft.
Really? The Republic water carrier said that? Oh it must be true then.
The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the forrner Nigerien Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick -redacted -, Chad. He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S.officials he thought there was "nothing to the story." Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador saying "he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.''
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
Of course, they likely won't let the facts dissuade them.
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
As currently implemented its not impossible to create de facto nesting if you use filtering but it is annoying. (For instance, label Parent, label LeafA, and Leaf B, every time you use LeafA, also label Parent, etc). On the other hand I'm not sure that it actually is a necessary feature or just one people expect.
Conceptually you certainly could. GMail currently doesn't allow filtering by label, but if it did you'd have de facto nesting (If label LeafA, apply Parent label).
It is kind of nice to be treated like an adult to have the choice to drink responsibly...key word there being personal choice. If you get busted driving drunk, it is as bad as anywhere else in the country.
Because what other consequences could arise from drunk driving? And surely its no one else's business since I couldn't possibly hurt someone by driving drunk.
Something stops being a "personal choice" when that "choice" can kill and cripple others. Whether you sleep with another adult is a personal choice (well, two or more choices). Whether you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Jesus is a personal choice. Whether you drink Guinness or Heineken is a personal choice. Whether you drive drunk or not you drink responsibly is only a 'personal choice' if choosing the negative is negligence that can result in death for yourself and others.
La. has about twice the drunk driving fatalities per capita as the national average. Maybe one thinks that drive through alcohol stands are unrelated to this, but to brush them off as prima facie harmless is silly.
Seems to be a mostly left-wing ideology to my knowledge, and it's always leftists who are eagerly advocating it.
It doesn't appear surprising given the level of knowledge you've demonstrated. Fascism is by definition a right-wing political philosophy. The right is statist, where individual rights are sacrificed for 'security' and the economic status quo is enforced. The left is 'liberal' where individual freedom and economic opportunity are encouraged.
Its amazing how often claims thats "leftists" lack knowledge or the ability reason demonstrate a complete ignorance and intellectually bankrupt parroting of right-wing talking points.
They don't, actually. Both Sweden and Finland have "hate speech" laws that have already been abused several times. Canada has the same problem. At the very least most of Europe is in a haze of political correctness where deviating from accepted groupthink, while not always illegal, is a very bad idea. This atmosphere is enforced by politicians and the media, and by common citizens as well. Sweden in particular is a very fascist country.
Really? Several times free speech has been encroached upon in someplace other than America? That would never happen here! Next thing you'll tell me racial or religious intolerance could happen here.
I guess you've never heard of the literal fascist parties that are allowed and run in Europe. Or how there are sometimes dozens of political parties who have different viewpoints. But then, you've never been to Europe, have you?
Slashdot Mirror
Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger involved in part mandatory video game labeling.
Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich
We're talking about non-narrowly tailored content-based compelled speech here. Is it really that hard to follow?
Unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment or just last 100 years of Constitutional precedent? Its pretty black letter law, and certainly applies to New York.
This may be part of the disconnect. USian Catholics and European Catholics are fairly different. US Catholics tend to be more religiously liberal (counter-intuitively since USians tend to be religiously more conservative than Europeans in general) than Europeans. My aunt (a nun) 5-10 years ago openly thought it was time for JPII to "receive his reward" (ie die and go to heaven) largely because she felt he was too conservative theologically. US Catholics are more likely to use birth control than Protestants, more likely to view the Bible as a metaphor, religiously tolerant, etc. The idea that
is not the standard at all.
Now granted, there are right-wing Catholics. But a majority of US Catholics are what the right calls "cafeteria Catholics". To say that there are portions of the church on the verge of open defiance is only a slight exaggeration. During a session with the parish priest before my goddaughter's christening, he went over many of the things that have driven people away from the church and talked about changing beliefs ("Limbo didn't make sense so we don't believe in that anymore" was the gist of some of it). There's a strong push for reform (which is not necessarily accepted by the dioceses ... the priest in question was 'reassigned' and as of last summer still didn't have a position except visiting several hospitals). With the push for more conservative viewpoints from the 3rd World I actually expect a schism in my lifetime.
That doesn't mean US Catholics don't believe in Jesus or his miracles. That's pretty fundamental to being a Christian. But unthinking submission to the Church in the US (at least in the North East) was dying even before the sex abuse scandal.
An interesting idea but its a house of cards (yuck yuck)
Thats a pretty twisted view on the Batman Begins. The IPO was initiated by Earle and Wayne was told he could not stop it. Earle's comments to the young Wayne about taking care of the company until he was old enough combined with his reference to Alfred of a large number of shares being given to the butler upon Wayne being declared dead suggest that Wayne retained majority control of the company all along and that his machinations merely prevented Earle from taking control away.
The actual scene involves a threat to blackmail the corporation (a felony), not to be a whistle blower. Wayne's use of corporate funds is questionable, but not on its face illegal... especially in a R&D department. Its entirely possible and even likely that the Batman related research could yield gains in other fields (and it is suggested at the start of tDK that this is the case).
And of course, a "better class of criminal" the Joker refers to would not be one that stole money, but just the opposite.
Then we won't have the knowledge to understand any warnings. Linguistically modern English would not be intelligible, scientific knowledge of radiation would be insufficient and a means to communicate in a way that doesn't require immediate proximity to the very thing we're warning against mean those neo-cavement would be boned.
And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
We should be reducing our oil dependency. Period. Full stop.
Doing irreparable damage to the ecology of ANWR for a theoretical supply of oil that at the most generous estimates would supply the US with less than 6 months of oil in 20 years is not good policy.
Here is a long picture diary of a trick to ANWR that prove you absolutely positively don't know what you're talking about. But then, I think that should be apparent given the name of Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
Drilling in ANWR would not yield significant benefits to the oil market until 2026 according to the Department of Energy.
It seems before you should tell people to get perspective, you should stop deluding yourself with homemade "facts".
"Terry Childs, a 43-year-old computer network administrator"
Who would have thunk it! Next thing you'll tell me is that Star Trek isn't based on solid science!
A - There's no Blu-Ray 360 coming in the near future. People have fabricated "rumors" to that effect because they expect it eventually, but there's been no halfway decent information indicating it. If MS didn't announce it yesterday, it won't be coming before Xmas 08 and likely not before E3 09.
B - Did Square go PS2 exclusive because of the next generation's not yet conceived drive? FF XIII was assumed to be PS3 exclusive because the last several generations have either been PS exclusives or launched on the PS 6+ months before other consoles.
Can you get into a system that has intentionally been locked off? And can you do so in a way that you're sure won't set off any little surprises that will, say, overwrite all backups with Star Trek Furry fan fiction, change who owns which files, e-mail/post confidential medical/legal data all over the interwebs, change data in a harmful way (switch names on booking records, for instance) and/or destroy all the relevant data?
Their safest bet short term might be to not try to access the system at all really. Pull the storage media and hope its not encrypted.
Now, we have no information indicating he's good enough to pull off some kind of massive lockdown in less than three weeks (even if he had planned something like this). But while you can always get access to a system if you have physical access, that doesn't mean you can get access with zero damage to the system.
"her lawyers say that the Hudsons employed private security guards to help supervise the private party on 3 May"
So? Even if that's true it doesn't prove the story wasn't essentially true. What part of "Assuming the mother is telling the truth" don't you understand? Furthermore, according to the mother there was something like 400 people at the party. How many security guards did you think they hired?
Additionally, just not being true is insufficient. Libel is very difficult to win in the US. If a newspaper asked got multiple quotes and based the story on the claims of the 'birthday girl' its almost automatically not libel by US standards.
Its patently false. There are places that the limit is ridiculous (UK its 5 w/ a parent), less strict (many places in Europe its 16) or identical to the US. Other places, alcohol can only be purchased or consumed at certain times, or not at all.
"Nanomaterials More Dangerous Than We Think" seems to directly contradict "there are inadequate data to inform quantitative risk assessments on current and emerging nanomaterials." At most it would seem "Nanomaterials May Possibly Be Dangerous"
By US standards this case would likely be tossed out.
The first story I found from the Daily Mail included getting a response from the mother, quotes from other party goers, etc
Just because the mother denies (possibly criminal, depending on how hitting her daughter occurred and what the laws are regarding serving minors alcohol over there) the report doesn't mean it was defamation or they didn't do their jobs. Maybe the quotes were made up, and maybe the pictures from the girl's blog didn't show what they seemed to (teenagers paired up in bed, passed out drunk girls, young men/teenagers carrying beer around) but we shouldn't assume that.
According to wiki in the UK
The US uses a somewhat similar standard. If you've got claims by the daughter, quotes from friends of the mother, and from party goers (and these are not fabricated) then to me "due care" has probably been taken.
You make a reasonable argument on why its wrong to violate copyright. That does not mean its "stealing."
Possession of something that should lawfully belong to someone is not theft on its face. The means by which one takes unlawful possession indicate different crimes.
There are a number of other variations on the above. Simple possession of another person's rightful property does not necessarily constitute theft.
I have to go to the supermarket, otherwise the doomsday scenario of a sandwich-less abode might come to pass.
On the way, I will need to buy gas to avoid the doomsday scenario of running out.
I hope I have avoided the doomsday scenario of appearing melodramatic.
Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how to write data to it yet.
Really? The Republic water carrier said that? Oh it must be true then.
Intelligence Cmt Report
Of course, they likely won't let the facts dissuade them.
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
Thats a pretty strong statement. P vs NP might have something to say about that (especially if a functional P=NP solution emerged)
As currently implemented its not impossible to create de facto nesting if you use filtering but it is annoying. (For instance, label Parent, label LeafA, and Leaf B, every time you use LeafA, also label Parent, etc). On the other hand I'm not sure that it actually is a necessary feature or just one people expect.
Conceptually you certainly could. GMail currently doesn't allow filtering by label, but if it did you'd have de facto nesting (If label LeafA, apply Parent label).
Because what other consequences could arise from drunk driving? And surely its no one else's business since I couldn't possibly hurt someone by driving drunk.
Something stops being a "personal choice" when that "choice" can kill and cripple others. Whether you sleep with another adult is a personal choice (well, two or more choices). Whether you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Jesus is a personal choice. Whether you drink Guinness or Heineken is a personal choice. Whether you drive drunk or not you drink responsibly is only a 'personal choice' if choosing the negative is negligence that can result in death for yourself and others.
La. has about twice the drunk driving fatalities per capita as the national average. Maybe one thinks that drive through alcohol stands are unrelated to this, but to brush them off as prima facie harmless is silly.
It doesn't appear surprising given the level of knowledge you've demonstrated. Fascism is by definition a right-wing political philosophy. The right is statist, where individual rights are sacrificed for 'security' and the economic status quo is enforced. The left is 'liberal' where individual freedom and economic opportunity are encouraged.
Its amazing how often claims thats "leftists" lack knowledge or the ability reason demonstrate a complete ignorance and intellectually bankrupt parroting of right-wing talking points.
Really? Several times free speech has been encroached upon in someplace other than America? That would never happen here! Next thing you'll tell me racial or religious intolerance could happen here.I guess you've never heard of the literal fascist parties that are allowed and run in Europe. Or how there are sometimes dozens of political parties who have different viewpoints. But then, you've never been to Europe, have you?