That's why though they're mere words, you're not legally allowed to yell fire in a movie theatre (unless there is one)
The court case that used the phrase "falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre" didn't come to the conclusion you think it did. What they said was that it MIGHT be illegal, but that since it was purely a hypothetical, they didn't have any intentions of deciding that matter.
Yes, words might be incitement. Nonetheless, I'm not actually frightened by words, and so it bothers me not at all that there might be "hate speech" on some website somewhere.
Supposed illegitimate activities on the internet didn't close brick and mortar stores
I'm curious. What "illegitimate activities" were supposed to kill brick & mortar stores? Because selling things via the internet isn't, in fact, an "illegitimate activity", nor is competing with a brick & mortar store.
Couldn't the administration just pardon him at this point?
Yes, the Administration could. However, the Administration was embarrassed by him and has absolutely no intention of letting him get away with embarrassing them.
Now, the NEXT administration might be willing to let him off, since they won't care if Snowden embarrassed Obama. Unless the next Administration is Hillary. Not likely, but certainly possible.
If only there weren't people who consider the Second Amendment obsolete/optional/meaningless, because encouraging lawmakers to ignore the parts you don't like just encourages them to ignore the parts you like....
Note the bolded part. It's important. Note that you can "pursue happiness" while overweight. or underweight. or normal weight. Whether you catch it is another question entirely....
Thank you for posting this, and saving me the trouble of doing so.
Yes, pretty much all of us are "stockholders" in quite a few companies. I certainly am, what with 401K's, IRA's, wife's 401Ks/IRAs, plus the beer stock I bought last week, just because I didn't own any beer stock....
Note that the rights holders will have a moderately enormous advantage in those negotiations, since the law will require that 20%, so if they insist on a huge pricetag, well, you still have to do 20%, even if the 20% costs more than the other 80%....
I tend to encourage my wife to watch the shows she likes because I won't be watching them with her. I've even got an agreement with her that I will watch exactly three chick flicks in a given year (no carryovers) as long as i get to veto her proposed chick flicks.
And thus the difference between "wife" and "girlfriend" is displayed for all to see.
Yes, you can do that with your wife (fortunately for me, I don't have to - my wife is more likely to want to watch Arrow than Sex in the City). But it's a bit harder with your girlfriend (assuming, always, that you want to keep her your girlfriend), since alienating the GF might very well mean no GF....
So, your theory is that we should let the rural poor of Africa and India suffer for a couple more generations rather than let whatsisname make a few billion extra?
Yeppers, we need more humanitarians like you. By the by, where I come from, we call that "cutting off your nose to spite your face"....
Youtube has a system in place, Content ID, to stop piracy and it works quite well. The crux is that they only allow it's use to musicians who have agreed to license their content to them or at least that's assumed, as they don't publish any rules. Everybody else gets left in the dust and isn't allowed into Content ID and thus their content can be shared on Youtube without permission.
So, what you're saying is that she's upset that YouTube doesn't give away their stuff (in this case, ContentID) for free? And, at the same time, she doesn't want to give her stuff away for free?
I mean imagine, back in the the late middle ages, a townload of merchants clubbing together to hire a ship to bring spices & silk & stuff from foreign lands and then dividing up the profit. Unthinkable!
It was called a Joint Stock Venture, or, to use a modern term "Corporation".
Because, after all, we could do a much better job of designing a human than evolution did. I mean, what's 100KY+ of field experience when compared to SCIENCE! ?
Just like you're allowed to yell "Fire!!" in a crowded movie theater.
Exactly. Note that even the case where the whole "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" thing came from included the keyword (usually left out) "FALSELY", as in in "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
And never mind that the case in question (where the "falsely shouting" was not the object of the case, but an example of a type of speech that might not be protected), they decided that the First Amendment protected speech of that sort anyways....
Yeah, we should ban cotton gins, and combine harvesters, and horse-drawn PLOWS, for God's sake!
Think how many more people we could employ if we didn't use horses to plow the fields, or allowed men to pick cotton seeds out of the cotton by hand the way they were meant to.
It's always interesting seeing the Luddites using a technology that didn't exist 50 years ago to natter about how some new technology is going to destroy civilization. I mean, it's not like the computer industry didn't put MILLIONS of telephone operators out of jobs...as well as millions more in other businesses....
If "mainstream" means "the majority of cars on the roads", then it'll be at least 20 years. Why? Because the effective lifetime of a car is approaching 20 years these days. People are not going to be going out and buying a new car to replace a perfectly good car, even if the new (expensive) car is self-driving.
That said, once it's an option on (most) every car, when people replace their car(s), the replacements WILL be self-driving.
Slashdot Mirror
The court case that used the phrase "falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre" didn't come to the conclusion you think it did. What they said was that it MIGHT be illegal, but that since it was purely a hypothetical, they didn't have any intentions of deciding that matter.
Yes, words might be incitement. Nonetheless, I'm not actually frightened by words, and so it bothers me not at all that there might be "hate speech" on some website somewhere.
I have no problem at all with terrorism posts on Twitter and/or Facebook.
Gives me a chance to point and laugh.
But then, I'm not so frightened of words as some people these days seem to be....
I'm curious. What "illegitimate activities" were supposed to kill brick & mortar stores? Because selling things via the internet isn't, in fact, an "illegitimate activity", nor is competing with a brick & mortar store.
Yes, the Administration could. However, the Administration was embarrassed by him and has absolutely no intention of letting him get away with embarrassing them.
Now, the NEXT administration might be willing to let him off, since they won't care if Snowden embarrassed Obama. Unless the next Administration is Hillary. Not likely, but certainly possible.
If only there weren't people who consider the Second Amendment obsolete/optional/meaningless, because encouraging lawmakers to ignore the parts you don't like just encourages them to ignore the parts you like....
Just curious - do you drink alcohol? Or caffeine? If so, do you define "recreational" drugs as "any drugs other than the ones I use"?
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Note the bolded part. It's important. Note that you can "pursue happiness" while overweight. or underweight. or normal weight. Whether you catch it is another question entirely....
Thank you for posting this, and saving me the trouble of doing so.
Yes, pretty much all of us are "stockholders" in quite a few companies. I certainly am, what with 401K's, IRA's, wife's 401Ks/IRAs, plus the beer stock I bought last week, just because I didn't own any beer stock....
Note that the rights holders will have a moderately enormous advantage in those negotiations, since the law will require that 20%, so if they insist on a huge pricetag, well, you still have to do 20%, even if the 20% costs more than the other 80%....
Interesting links.
So, the $7B that Greece spent on the Olympics pushed their debt to $273B, which was a major cause of their current economic woes?
From where I sit, I'd think the other $266B of debt was the real problem, not the (relative) pittance they spent on the Olympics.
Like, maybe, this one? Is there any evidence other than his statement?
Ever notice how high temps are "proof of AGW", but low temps are "just weather"?
Well, hate to tell you this, but one day's high temps are "just weather" too.
Is AGW happening? Probably. Is THIS proof? Nope, it's just weather. Local weather, at that....
Just a guess, but I'm assuming it is perceived as letting you get more nicotine faster....
And thus the difference between "wife" and "girlfriend" is displayed for all to see.
Yes, you can do that with your wife (fortunately for me, I don't have to - my wife is more likely to want to watch Arrow than Sex in the City). But it's a bit harder with your girlfriend (assuming, always, that you want to keep her your girlfriend), since alienating the GF might very well mean no GF....
Principal. Interesting to see people who are unable to spell complaining about the low standards in schools....
So, your theory is that we should let the rural poor of Africa and India suffer for a couple more generations rather than let whatsisname make a few billion extra?
Yeppers, we need more humanitarians like you. By the by, where I come from, we call that "cutting off your nose to spite your face"....
So, what you're saying is that she's upset that YouTube doesn't give away their stuff (in this case, ContentID) for free? And, at the same time, she doesn't want to give her stuff away for free?
Makes sense now....
Yeah, I'd think it would be a GOOD thing that Senior Citizens wouldn't be homebound.
And that teenagers could get home from parties safely.
It was called a Joint Stock Venture, or, to use a modern term "Corporation".
Because, after all, we could do a much better job of designing a human than evolution did. I mean, what's 100KY+ of field experience when compared to SCIENCE! ?
Exactly. Note that even the case where the whole "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" thing came from included the keyword (usually left out) "FALSELY", as in in "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
And never mind that the case in question (where the "falsely shouting" was not the object of the case, but an example of a type of speech that might not be protected), they decided that the First Amendment protected speech of that sort anyways....
Yeah, we should ban cotton gins, and combine harvesters, and horse-drawn PLOWS, for God's sake!
Think how many more people we could employ if we didn't use horses to plow the fields, or allowed men to pick cotton seeds out of the cotton by hand the way they were meant to.
It's always interesting seeing the Luddites using a technology that didn't exist 50 years ago to natter about how some new technology is going to destroy civilization. I mean, it's not like the computer industry didn't put MILLIONS of telephone operators out of jobs...as well as millions more in other businesses....
If "mainstream" means "the majority of cars on the roads", then it'll be at least 20 years. Why? Because the effective lifetime of a car is approaching 20 years these days. People are not going to be going out and buying a new car to replace a perfectly good car, even if the new (expensive) car is self-driving.
That said, once it's an option on (most) every car, when people replace their car(s), the replacements WILL be self-driving.
The firebombings of Tokyo were MUCH worse than Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined.
And note the "s" at the end of firebombings. We didn't just firebomb the city once.....
You also left out something between "don't" and "it's". Not enough coffee yet?