I don't hire a programmer everytime I want to do something with my computer. I've learned to be a capable programmer myself.
Would you hire a programmer if, the first time you ran the program it had to work 100% correctly with no bugs, and you did not get more than one chance to run the program (including testing)? You don't get test drives or re-dos in court.
Another good reason to get a lawyer and not represent yourself is that's not just about knowing the law. You also have to be able to present yourself.
Very true. Part of litigation is not just knowing the rules but how to effectively present an argument within the highly formal framework of rules. There are many excellent lawyers who are horrible in the courtroom. I watched many of them while clerking for a judge.
It's very difficult for a client to remove themselves from their emotions which will hurt them. Lawyers on the other hand have no emotions.
True on point one. Point two, I take it, is a funny. Nevertheless, attorneys care about their cases, just in a different way. If a client loses a custody battle, I haven't lost my kid. On the other hand I can't stand losing.
Point taken. Nevertheless consider that there is only one US and there are hundreds of other countries. Its easy for people from other countries to sound learned - just be familiar with your own place and the US. Evidently, furn'ers want us to be experts on the us plus their place, too. It is, in all fairness, an impossible task.
In the absence of a preponderance of evidence, innocence is assumed in civil cases. Determination of the definition of preponderance is the sticking point here.
Civil courts have nothing to do with "innocence". Nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Nothing.
I would let DTV make their case, and then just demonstrate a google search in court to find a legit source for a smart card programmer. Then rest. The search refutes their evidence (It was the easiest way to get one) and then they have no proof of what you actually did with it.
Objection your honor. Relevance. C'mon.
You suffer from the illusion of the ignorant about the courts: A judge will surely be patient and understanding, and if only he will be reasonable, you can straighten this whole mess out in five minutes. Well, you would be flayed alive by opposing counsel (most of the people pursuing these cases for DTV are meatheads, and they'd still kill you).
Slashbots are totally ignorant when it comes to the legal world. Would you try to perform brain surgery on your neighbor after reading a couple of books or watching it on tv? Are you fucking crazy?
Half the battle in using a lawyer is knowing when to use him and when not to. If you don't understand that, then you are bound for the Sodomite Pits of the Pro Se Idiots.
You can get a decent education just by spending a few weeks sitting in on a murder trial or two, and it's free.
I'm going to circulate your post at my local bar association board meeting tomorrow. I'm sure that they will agree with me on how rational and thoughtful it is.
1. Directv is not suing "anyone" who bought a smart card. DTV is suing people who bought them from companies that were raided and shut down by the feds because they were breaking the law. That's a big difference taco. The seller of the cards is essentially the distinguishing characteristic here.
Here's an analogy:
It is illegal to buy things that are sold as illegal drugs, even if they are not drugs. For instance, if I buy flour from a dealer thinking it is coke, I go to jail for trying to buy drugs.
Now. Let's say that I am in a swanky neighborhood and I need some flour for a tart. My next door neighbor is Pablo Escobar. I know he has flour, because I called him and asked. He sells it cheaply, too, even cheaper than my local grocer. So, I walk across the street and buy flour from Pablo (thinking that it is flour, and it is). Pablo put it in a plastic bag, because he always seems to have those.
I start to walk out of the house, and the cops raid the place. I get busted for trying to buy drugs. Now maybe I have a perfectly innocent reason for being where I am with what I have, but it sure looks bad, doesn't it? If I had been caught in the same circumstances and the occupant of the house was Ned Flanders and the cops were looking for a rapist, I wouldn't be in trouble, most likely. Is it wrong that this difference exists?
Our courts are not truth detectors. There is no magic crystal that glows in the presence of honesty. Past experience and facts are all that a court can rely upon to make judgment calls.
The facts here are that all of the dealers here were shut down for peddling illegal pirate TV devices. Their customer records were pulled and showed buyers and what the buyers bought. Maybe some of them are innocent, but most of them absolutely were trying to steal tv signals. They are now caught up in civil cases, where the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases and Directv has some pretty damning circumstantial evidence. It is (rightly) on the shoulders of the defendants to put up or shut up and pay up.
Mod me down if you want, but it won't change my mind that these people are, for the most part, thieves that are trying to justify their conduct after the fact.
In any trial where you represent yourself, the judge is obligated to make sure that your rights aren't trampled. It creates a double-bind situation, psychologically. The judge, on the one hand, is requred to be impartial. On the other hand, he also has to be watching out to make sure that the opposing lawyer isn't taking unfair advantage of the situation.
You haven't been in court much, have you?
This means frequent breaks while the judge explains what various things mean, proper procedure, form for questions, etc. Ten people representing themselves in court would be disasterous to a judge's schedule. A thousand people doing the same will clog the system so badly...
The judge will go out of his way not to help someone who doesn't know shit just as much as he will go out of his way not to help a smart lawyer. There are exceptions, but I clerked for a judge (whom I greatly respect), and as much as he wanted to sometimes, he would not do anything for them beyond judge what was properly before him. To do otherwise violates every principle that matters to judges.
In short, if you go into court with the idea that a judge will explain things to you at all or help you in any way if you are pro se, you are going to walk out without being concerned about constipation ever again.
It actually won't interfere, criminal and civil court are seperate. You can clog up the civil court system with frivilous lawsuits, but the criminal system remains seperate.
Ummmm...not true. It may in fact clog things up. District Court judges hear criminal and civil cases. The criminal stuff gets heard first because of speedy trial acts and civil rights implications involved with holding suspects in jail without trying them (please ignore Camp X-Ray for purposes of this discussion).
Federal judges despise drug cases in particular, because these have overburdened the courts terribly -- federal courts were never intended to be used as courts of first resort for ordinary criminal matters, but with increased federalization of crimes, this is becoming a reality. District courthouses look more like the local justice of the peace with every passing day.
In any case, the civil matters get the last tit, since cases (generally) will not be dismissed as a result of a court taking too long. Meretorious (as opposed to meretricious) cases will take longer to reach resolution, and this is a problem.
In addition, there is a chronic understaffing situtation with federal judges -- appointments are increasingly political and vacancies can exist for some time as a result. Even if the "hot" appointment is in district A, the appointment in district X may be held up as a bargaining chip while the Senate thaws out Strom Thurmond to cast a tie-breaker (no more, alas).
In short, the criminal stuff will likely not suffer, but the civil stuff will tend to age more before being dealt with. In some cases, it will depend on your district. For instance, if you are in a hot asbestos district, the civil dockets are terrible. My local federal court is in decent shape, but if a judge dies unexpectedly, we could be screwed.
Um how do they get default judgement if you ignore the letter? They have to serve you the papers for the lawsuit.
Lots of dumbshits get legal papers with things like "NOTICE TO PLEAD" and "COMPLAINT" written all over the front of them, usually delivered by guys in uniforms, and they throw them in the trash.
After all, it's not unusual to see the Sheriff in the trailer park, and he's probably just being neighborly and bringing your mail up from the mailbox.
Hughes Electronics returns to profit in quarter on strong growth at DirecTV GARY GENTILE Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Hughes Electronics Corp. posted a profit for the second quarter driven by a jump in revenue and profit at its DirecTV satellite television unit, the company reported Wednesday.
Hughes also raised its revenue estimates for the full year.
The El Segundo-based company reported net income of $21.6 million in the quarter ended June 30, in contrast to a net loss of $155.1 million in the same period last year.
Excluding one-time gains, Hughes said it was the first time since 1999 that the company was able to report net income.
"We almost forgot how to spell it," quipped Jack Shaw, Hughes president and chief executive officer.
The company's DirecTV business is the leading satellite television service.
Hughes does not report per share earnings because it is a tracking stock of General Motors. Its earnings are reflected in GM's results.
Hughes' second quarter revenue increased 8.1 percent to $2.37 billion, compared to $2.19 billion in the same period last year.
Hughes also said Wednesday that it has agreed to pay Boeing Co. $360 million to settle a dispute stemming from the $3.75 billion deal in which Boeing bought Hughes' satellite-making business in 2000. The two companies also agreed to restructure Boeing's contract to build Hughes' Spaceway broadband satellite system.
Separately, Boeing said Wednesday it would take a $1.1 billion charge to reflect weaknesses in its commercial satellite business.
Hughes benefited in the second quarter by the performance of DirecTV, where revenue jumped 16 percent to $1.8 billion in the period. The service added 181,000 net subscribers and raised its earnings per subscriber by $2.80 to nearly $61.
Profit margins were driven mainly by a price increase during the quarter and an increase in the number of subscribers taking local channels.
Hughes intends to boost profits at DirecTV even further by marketing new digital recorder set-top boxes to existing customers and rolling out local channels in more markets.
"It's kind of getting back to running the company for the purpose of making money," Shaw said. "We keep trying to offer more value to our customers to entice them to buy more of our service."
DirecTV ended the quarter with 11.56 million subscribers.
For the first half of the year, Hughes had a loss of $29.3 million, compared to a loss of $992.8 million in the same period a year earlier. Revenue rose to $4.6 billion from $4.2 billion.
Based on the results, Hughes raised its estimate of full-year revenue to a range of $9.7 billion to $9.8 billion from a range of $9.5 billion to $9.6 billion.
Earlier this year, GM agreed to sell a majority stake in Hughes to News Corp. That deal is still pending regulatory approval.
On Wednesday parent company Hughes Electronics reported strong second quarter results, with $2.4 million in revenue, driven by DirecTV's subscriber growth. It ended the quarter with 11.6 million subscribers paying an average of $61 a month for service.
Ummmm...that's un-possible. 11,600,000 times $61 times 3 mo. (in a quarter) = 2,122,800,000. Plus other junk, like ads, pay-per-view, etc., I suspect that brings Directv's revenues close to 2.4 Billion per quarter. Think Carl Sagan, folks.
The fire starter uses magnesium as a flame source of 5400F. One fire starter should provide hundreds of fires. Simple to use; just shave pieces of magnesium using a sharp knife. Place next to dry twigs, paper, etc. and scrape the sparking edge with a knife to ignite the magnesium. Wt. 2 oz.
XXX Prize. Now there's competition I would pay to go see (just, for the love of god, make sure that no geeks participate):
Top Ten Awards to be presented at the XXX Prize contest:
10. Best "tits on glass" from a rocket occupant 9. Best moon (of course) 8. Body most improved by zero gravity 7. Most unique position for rocket occupants 6. Most creative use of non-human test flight animal 5. Fewest minutes on-line to obtain a burnable VCD image of "Gayniggers from Outer Space" 4. Most creative use of "G" forces 3. Best ejection (male and female) 2. Most creative use of the "Johnson Space Center"
I can't say that I'm for that sort of an absolutist interpretation of the notion of "free speech".
Then I hate you. Sorry.
Why don't you send me your address, and I'll send over the 120 db sound truck to read porn, or worse, Jackie Collins novels, outside your window at full volume for, say, a week.
"Should a neighbor be allowed to amplify his voice outside my house and recite pornography at 120 db without restriction?"
Thats the great thing about Freenet, content that is not requested is quickly repleced by content that is in demand.
That is a nice fact to know, but it is irrelevant to my point, which was that there are clearly reasonable cases where speech is (and ought) to be restricted (for a variety of reasons).
I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.
-Voltaire
I guess Voltaire would have fought to the death to protect the rights of Klansmen to burn crosses in the rights-of-way adjacent to homes of blacks. Good for him. I can't say that I'm for that sort of an absolutist interpretation of the notion of "free speech".
That's a bit of a non-sequitur, because it falls under the rules of a private establishment. Speech on private property can be restricted by the owner of the property, and isn't protected under the Constitution.
Unless you happen to own a public-like place, such as a shopping mall (in some states).
In any case, as a general rule, you are correct. The Constitution only protects you against government actions. It was a poor example, but it was a throwaway line meant primarily for entertainment value in any case.
>Two words: sovereign immunity. You can't sue the king except under certain limited circumstances >where the king agrees to let you sue him.
Public entities get sued all the time for various reasons
I never said that they didn't get sued. What I said was that they can't be sued unless they let you sue them. In my state there are a number of statutory exceptions to the doctrine of soveriegn immunity. Real estate and motor vehicles are the two biggies.
If you don't believe in total, indiscriminatory, complete freedom of speech and expression (an information anarchy, as it were), Freenet is not for you.
I have no problem with your first statement, because I think it is probably true, based on what I know about Freenet.
On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.
This second statement is a little around the bend, however. Care to reel that in some?
To wit: Are your statements meant to indicate that there can be no reasonable restrictions on speech under any circumstances?
I must admit that, to some extent, I fall into the "freedom of speech, but only when I agree" category, at least under some circumstances. For instance, I don't want the asshole in the crowded movie theater to shout "Fire!" or even to talk loudly during a movie I paid to see. Most of the rest of the time, I am opposed to speech limitations, but there are clearly times and places where speech ought to be limited.
Should a neighbor be allowed to amplify his voice outside my house and recite pornography at 120 db without restriction? I suggest that the answer is no. Do I "have some thinking to do"or am I misunderstanding your apparent point?
I certainly have no objection to someone saying "the US sucks" or "raise taxes on the rich" even though I disagree with those propositions. But I will kick ass and take names if someone next to me is talking during RotK in December.
In any case, your comments do not seem to foreclose the possibility of a middle ground, but when I first read them, they struck me as silly, cartoonish statements, and perhaps I over-reacted. Wouldn't be the first time.
Yes, Freenet is not for everybody. If you don't believe in total, indiscriminatory, complete freedom of speech and expression (an information anarchy, as it were), Freenet is not for you. On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.
Nice try at framing the debate. Do you have fun at home ruling your army of straw men? I've seen more nuanced opinions in political stump speeches.
If there's one thing tech people do not understand, it is tort law.
You've actually made a severe understatement, but possibly not in the direction you intended. The lack of understanding by techs is far less a product of tech ignorance than a product of their very full and well developed understanding of the fundamental irrelevance of law, lawyers, and the whole paraphenalia of humanity's self-sustaining legal institutions.
That doesn't mean that they ignore them of course, as otherwise the system will put them behind bars. But they do ignore them at a deeper level, where it really matters.
What is this? A lawyer troll? Call up the troll archive, baby.
1. April Fool's Day was over 4.5 months ago. LAME!
2. This would be funny if Microsoft had not cited national security concerns as a reason why they were unwilling to release code. I can't find a link to that now, but there was an MS VP who made a statement along those lines last year: Releasing MS source could endanger national security because of problems with the code.
That MS now wins the "Homeland Security" contract just sounds like an oxymoron.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't hire a programmer everytime I want to do something with my computer. I've learned to be a capable programmer myself.
Would you hire a programmer if, the first time you ran the program it had to work 100% correctly with no bugs, and you did not get more than one chance to run the program (including testing)? You don't get test drives or re-dos in court.
Another good reason to get a lawyer and not represent yourself is that's not just about knowing the law. You also have to be able to present yourself.
Very true. Part of litigation is not just knowing the rules but how to effectively present an argument within the highly formal framework of rules. There are many excellent lawyers who are horrible in the courtroom. I watched many of them while clerking for a judge.
It's very difficult for a client to remove themselves from their emotions which will hurt them. Lawyers on the other hand have no emotions.
True on point one. Point two, I take it, is a funny. Nevertheless, attorneys care about their cases, just in a different way. If a client loses a custody battle, I haven't lost my kid. On the other hand I can't stand losing.
GF.
Point taken. Nevertheless consider that there is only one US and there are hundreds of other countries. Its easy for people from other countries to sound learned - just be familiar with your own place and the US. Evidently, furn'ers want us to be experts on the us plus their place, too. It is, in all fairness, an impossible task.
GF.
That sounds bizarre enough to be British. My bad.
GF.
In the absence of a preponderance of evidence, innocence is assumed in civil cases. Determination of the definition of preponderance is the sticking point here.
Civil courts have nothing to do with "innocence". Nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Nothing.
I would let DTV make their case, and then just demonstrate a google search in court to find a legit source for a smart card programmer. Then rest. The search refutes their evidence (It was the easiest way to get one) and then they have no proof of what you actually did with it.
Objection your honor. Relevance. C'mon.
You suffer from the illusion of the ignorant about the courts: A judge will surely be patient and understanding, and if only he will be reasonable, you can straighten this whole mess out in five minutes. Well, you would be flayed alive by opposing counsel (most of the people pursuing these cases for DTV are meatheads, and they'd still kill you).
Slashbots are totally ignorant when it comes to the legal world. Would you try to perform brain surgery on your neighbor after reading a couple of books or watching it on tv? Are you fucking crazy?
Half the battle in using a lawyer is knowing when to use him and when not to. If you don't understand that, then you are bound for the Sodomite Pits of the Pro Se Idiots.
GF.
You can get a decent education just by spending a few weeks sitting in on a murder trial or two, and it's free.
I'm going to circulate your post at my local bar association board meeting tomorrow. I'm sure that they will agree with me on how rational and thoughtful it is.
Best of luck.
GF.
1. Directv is not suing "anyone" who bought a smart card. DTV is suing people who bought them from companies that were raided and shut down by the feds because they were breaking the law. That's a big difference taco. The seller of the cards is essentially the distinguishing characteristic here.
Here's an analogy:
It is illegal to buy things that are sold as illegal drugs, even if they are not drugs. For instance, if I buy flour from a dealer thinking it is coke, I go to jail for trying to buy drugs.
Now. Let's say that I am in a swanky neighborhood and I need some flour for a tart. My next door neighbor is Pablo Escobar. I know he has flour, because I called him and asked. He sells it cheaply, too, even cheaper than my local grocer. So, I walk across the street and buy flour from Pablo (thinking that it is flour, and it is). Pablo put it in a plastic bag, because he always seems to have those.
I start to walk out of the house, and the cops raid the place. I get busted for trying to buy drugs. Now maybe I have a perfectly innocent reason for being where I am with what I have, but it sure looks bad, doesn't it? If I had been caught in the same circumstances and the occupant of the house was Ned Flanders and the cops were looking for a rapist, I wouldn't be in trouble, most likely. Is it wrong that this difference exists?
Our courts are not truth detectors. There is no magic crystal that glows in the presence of honesty. Past experience and facts are all that a court can rely upon to make judgment calls.
The facts here are that all of the dealers here were shut down for peddling illegal pirate TV devices. Their customer records were pulled and showed buyers and what the buyers bought. Maybe some of them are innocent, but most of them absolutely were trying to steal tv signals. They are now caught up in civil cases, where the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases and Directv has some pretty damning circumstantial evidence. It is (rightly) on the shoulders of the defendants to put up or shut up and pay up.
Mod me down if you want, but it won't change my mind that these people are, for the most part, thieves that are trying to justify their conduct after the fact.
GF.
In any trial where you represent yourself, the judge is obligated to make sure that your rights aren't trampled. It creates a double-bind situation, psychologically. The judge, on the one hand, is requred to be impartial. On the other hand, he also has to be watching out to make sure that the opposing lawyer isn't taking unfair advantage of the situation.
...
You haven't been in court much, have you?
This means frequent breaks while the judge explains what various things mean, proper procedure, form for questions, etc. Ten people representing themselves in court would be disasterous to a judge's schedule. A thousand people doing the same will clog the system so badly
The judge will go out of his way not to help someone who doesn't know shit just as much as he will go out of his way not to help a smart lawyer. There are exceptions, but I clerked for a judge (whom I greatly respect), and as much as he wanted to sometimes, he would not do anything for them beyond judge what was properly before him. To do otherwise violates every principle that matters to judges.
In short, if you go into court with the idea that a judge will explain things to you at all or help you in any way if you are pro se, you are going to walk out without being concerned about constipation ever again.
GF.
blah
But since this is a common misconception:
It actually won't interfere, criminal and civil court are seperate. You can clog up the civil court system with frivilous lawsuits, but the criminal system remains seperate.
Ummmm...not true. It may in fact clog things up. District Court judges hear criminal and civil cases. The criminal stuff gets heard first because of speedy trial acts and civil rights implications involved with holding suspects in jail without trying them (please ignore Camp X-Ray for purposes of this discussion).
Federal judges despise drug cases in particular, because these have overburdened the courts terribly -- federal courts were never intended to be used as courts of first resort for ordinary criminal matters, but with increased federalization of crimes, this is becoming a reality. District courthouses look more like the local justice of the peace with every passing day.
In any case, the civil matters get the last tit, since cases (generally) will not be dismissed as a result of a court taking too long. Meretorious (as opposed to meretricious) cases will take longer to reach resolution, and this is a problem.
In addition, there is a chronic understaffing situtation with federal judges -- appointments are increasingly political and vacancies can exist for some time as a result. Even if the "hot" appointment is in district A, the appointment in district X may be held up as a bargaining chip while the Senate thaws out Strom Thurmond to cast a tie-breaker (no more, alas).
In short, the criminal stuff will likely not suffer, but the civil stuff will tend to age more before being dealt with. In some cases, it will depend on your district. For instance, if you are in a hot asbestos district, the civil dockets are terrible. My local federal court is in decent shape, but if a judge dies unexpectedly, we could be screwed.
GF.
Um how do they get default judgement if you ignore the letter? They have to serve you the papers for the lawsuit.
Lots of dumbshits get legal papers with things like "NOTICE TO PLEAD" and "COMPLAINT" written all over the front of them, usually delivered by guys in uniforms, and they throw them in the trash.
After all, it's not unusual to see the Sheriff in the trailer park, and he's probably just being neighborly and bringing your mail up from the mailbox.
GF.
AP news:
Hughes Electronics returns to profit in quarter on strong growth at DirecTV
GARY GENTILE
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Hughes Electronics Corp. posted a profit for the second quarter driven by a jump in revenue and profit at its DirecTV satellite television unit, the company reported Wednesday.
Hughes also raised its revenue estimates for the full year.
The El Segundo-based company reported net income of $21.6 million in the quarter ended June 30, in contrast to a net loss of $155.1 million in the same period last year.
Excluding one-time gains, Hughes said it was the first time since 1999 that the company was able to report net income.
"We almost forgot how to spell it," quipped Jack Shaw, Hughes president and chief executive officer.
The company's DirecTV business is the leading satellite television service.
Hughes does not report per share earnings because it is a tracking stock of General Motors. Its earnings are reflected in GM's results.
Hughes' second quarter revenue increased 8.1 percent to $2.37 billion, compared to $2.19 billion in the same period last year.
Hughes also said Wednesday that it has agreed to pay Boeing Co. $360 million to settle a dispute stemming from the $3.75 billion deal in which Boeing bought Hughes' satellite-making business in 2000. The two companies also agreed to restructure Boeing's contract to build Hughes' Spaceway broadband satellite system.
Separately, Boeing said Wednesday it would take a $1.1 billion charge to reflect weaknesses in its commercial satellite business.
Hughes benefited in the second quarter by the performance of DirecTV, where revenue jumped 16 percent to $1.8 billion in the period. The service added 181,000 net subscribers and raised its earnings per subscriber by $2.80 to nearly $61.
Profit margins were driven mainly by a price increase during the quarter and an increase in the number of subscribers taking local channels.
Hughes intends to boost profits at DirecTV even further by marketing new digital recorder set-top boxes to existing customers and rolling out local channels in more markets.
"It's kind of getting back to running the company for the purpose of making money," Shaw said. "We keep trying to offer more value to our customers to entice them to buy more of our service."
DirecTV ended the quarter with 11.56 million subscribers.
For the first half of the year, Hughes had a loss of $29.3 million, compared to a loss of $992.8 million in the same period a year earlier. Revenue rose to $4.6 billion from $4.2 billion.
Based on the results, Hughes raised its estimate of full-year revenue to a range of $9.7 billion to $9.8 billion from a range of $9.5 billion to $9.6 billion.
Earlier this year, GM agreed to sell a majority stake in Hughes to News Corp. That deal is still pending regulatory approval.
On Wednesday parent company Hughes Electronics reported strong second quarter results, with $2.4 million in revenue, driven by DirecTV's subscriber growth. It ended the quarter with 11.6 million subscribers paying an average of $61 a month for service.
Ummmm...that's un-possible. 11,600,000 times $61 times 3 mo. (in a quarter) = 2,122,800,000. Plus other junk, like ads, pay-per-view, etc., I suspect that brings Directv's revenues close to 2.4 Billion per quarter. Think Carl Sagan, folks.
A little fact-checking or editing would be nice.
GF.
Left out this bit on the fire starters:
The fire starter uses magnesium as a flame source of 5400F. One fire starter should provide hundreds of fires. Simple to use; just shave pieces of magnesium using a sharp knife. Place next to dry twigs, paper, etc. and scrape the sparking edge with a knife to ignite the magnesium. Wt. 2 oz.
GF.
The handheld body is made of magnesium.
Better hope it doesn't rain!
It serves as firestarting tool as well!
GF.
XXX Prize. Now there's competition I would pay to go see (just, for the love of god, make sure that no geeks participate):
Top Ten Awards to be presented at the XXX Prize contest:
10. Best "tits on glass" from a rocket occupant
9. Best moon (of course)
8. Body most improved by zero gravity
7. Most unique position for rocket occupants
6. Most creative use of non-human test flight animal
5. Fewest minutes on-line to obtain a burnable VCD image of "Gayniggers from Outer Space"
4. Most creative use of "G" forces
3. Best ejection (male and female)
2. Most creative use of the "Johnson Space Center"
and.....[drum roll]
1. The venerable...Most Rings Around Uranus
GF.
I can't say that I'm for that sort of an absolutist interpretation of the notion of "free speech".
Then I hate you. Sorry.
Why don't you send me your address, and I'll send over the 120 db sound truck to read porn, or worse, Jackie Collins novels, outside your window at full volume for, say, a week.
I guess that defamation is fine with you, too.
Perhaps you're just a troll.
GF.
Do you have a clue? Silly question.
[snippity-snip-snip-snip]
True, fluoride in drinking water can slightly improve children's dental health.
[...]
Damage a large proportion of the nation's teeth to slightly improve the minority's.
== Jez ==
Abolish the UK TV licence fee!
To join BBCresistance, e-mail: bbcresistance-subscribe@topica.com
Soooo...someone in England is lecturing the rest of the world about dental care?
GF.
"Should a neighbor be allowed to amplify his voice outside my house and recite pornography at 120 db without restriction?"
Thats the great thing about Freenet, content that is not requested is quickly repleced by content that is in demand.
That is a nice fact to know, but it is irrelevant to my point, which was that there are clearly reasonable cases where speech is (and ought) to be restricted (for a variety of reasons).
I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.
-Voltaire
I guess Voltaire would have fought to the death to protect the rights of Klansmen to burn crosses in the rights-of-way adjacent to homes of blacks. Good for him. I can't say that I'm for that sort of an absolutist interpretation of the notion of "free speech".
GF.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur, because it falls under the rules of a private establishment. Speech on private property can be restricted by the owner of the property, and isn't protected under the Constitution.
Unless you happen to own a public-like place, such as a shopping mall (in some states).
In any case, as a general rule, you are correct. The Constitution only protects you against government actions. It was a poor example, but it was a throwaway line meant primarily for entertainment value in any case.
GF.
>Two words: sovereign immunity. You can't sue the king except under certain limited circumstances
>where the king agrees to let you sue him.
Public entities get sued all the time for various reasons
I never said that they didn't get sued. What I said was that they can't be sued unless they let you sue them. In my state there are a number of statutory exceptions to the doctrine of soveriegn immunity. Real estate and motor vehicles are the two biggies.
GF.
If you don't believe in total, indiscriminatory, complete freedom of speech and expression (an information anarchy, as it were), Freenet is not for you.
I have no problem with your first statement, because I think it is probably true, based on what I know about Freenet.
On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.
This second statement is a little around the bend, however. Care to reel that in some?
To wit:
Are your statements meant to indicate that there can be no reasonable restrictions on speech under any circumstances?
I must admit that, to some extent, I fall into the "freedom of speech, but only when I agree" category, at least under some circumstances. For instance, I don't want the asshole in the crowded movie theater to shout "Fire!" or even to talk loudly during a movie I paid to see. Most of the rest of the time, I am opposed to speech limitations, but there are clearly times and places where speech ought to be limited.
Should a neighbor be allowed to amplify his voice outside my house and recite pornography at 120 db without restriction? I suggest that the answer is no. Do I "have some thinking to do"or am I misunderstanding your apparent point?
I certainly have no objection to someone saying "the US sucks" or "raise taxes on the rich" even though I disagree with those propositions. But I will kick ass and take names if someone next to me is talking during RotK in December.
In any case, your comments do not seem to foreclose the possibility of a middle ground, but when I first read them, they struck me as silly, cartoonish statements, and perhaps I over-reacted. Wouldn't be the first time.
GF.
Yes, Freenet is not for everybody. If you don't believe in total, indiscriminatory, complete freedom of speech and expression (an information anarchy, as it were), Freenet is not for you. On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.
Nice try at framing the debate. Do you have fun at home ruling your army of straw men? I've seen more nuanced opinions in political stump speeches.
GF.
If there's one thing tech people do not understand, it is tort law.
You've actually made a severe understatement, but possibly not in the direction you intended. The lack of understanding by techs is far less a product of tech ignorance than a product of their very full and well developed understanding of the fundamental irrelevance of law, lawyers, and the whole paraphenalia of humanity's self-sustaining legal institutions.
That doesn't mean that they ignore them of course, as otherwise the system will put them behind bars. But they do ignore them at a deeper level, where it really matters.
What is this? A lawyer troll? Call up the troll archive, baby.
GF.
Guys (Gals and the transgendered):
1. April Fool's Day was over 4.5 months ago. LAME!
2. This would be funny if Microsoft had not cited national security concerns as a reason why they were unwilling to release code. I can't find a link to that now, but there was an MS VP who made a statement along those lines last year: Releasing MS source could endanger national security because of problems with the code.
That MS now wins the "Homeland Security" contract just sounds like an oxymoron.
GF.
The parent comment is proof that Slashdot needs a "+1 Troll" moderation.
I got a +5 Funny one time for a post that had something like a dozen Goatse.cx links in it. You never can tell what people will get a laugh from.