Exactly. that's the bottom line, and any law (i.e. DMCA) that infringes our right to do so is illegitimate, unamerican, and unconstitutional.
Re:Great for border patrol
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 1
Ok, they can go on the norther border, too. As George Washington once said, the best way to protect our freedom is to protect our borders and keep the illegals out. No "freedom" is involved in crossing our borders w/out permission (which I am all for granting), so there is no irony in my sig at all.
We have tried to solve the matter in an amicable way,â said Hugh Brogan, Sendoâ(TM)s chief executive officer.
Translated: We tried to extort millions of dollars before filing suit, and they said no. Reminds me of IBM's past amicable actions.
Great for border patrol
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I can see these things sweeping the lush banks of the Rio Grande, greatly reducing the burden on US Border Patrol. One US Border Patrol agent can round up about a dozen illegals per hour, whereas I'll bet this machine could snag at least 40 or so (with minor modifications). Technology kicks ass!
Re:in the long term.....
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Aside from the fact that these are incredibly dumb animals, they have no reason to learn to avoid the machine. First time they experience it, they get sucked in and end up on my plate.
Totally off the subject, but just FYI your sig quote is wrong.. It's "A Foolish Consistency..." (totally changes the meaning... nothing foolish about just plain old consistency).
Are they trying to sell something? If so, pretend to place an order, find out where to send the check, and (assuming it's not a PO box) go there and hurt them severely. Even if it were a PO box you'd get the name of the business and could look it up.
1. Tax the sin to reduce it (seemingly good public policy).
2. Frequency of sinning goes down due to cost of sin tax.
3. Sin tax revenue thereby goes down.
4. Gov't decides it liked the sin-money.
5. Gov't thinks of new, crazy ways to tax us.
6. Gov't profits.
Moral? Keep on sinning. Protect yourself. If you quit smoking cigarettes, then they'll want to tax your water to make up for the lost tobacco-tax revenue.
To me, this is no different than charging KKK members $1 to enforce local Jim Crow laws (if they don't pay $1 for each law every $50 years, then the law comes off the books). Would this be a valid way of getting rid of Jim Crow laws? No way, I'm afraid to say.
I don't see how one can say that Empower America formally taking the position against expansion of the gambling industry is "having no official position on gambling." If you are against X spreading, it's because you are against X in the first place, especially when X is a moral issue. Sometimes you just accept the fact that it's impossible to get rid of X completely, so all you can do is try to prevent it from spreading any further. Many times such a practical position is taken in respect to an issue, but that doesn't mean one isn't against the underlying issue.
I can't find anywhere on the web the completion of the "But adults on their own time..." sentence. I don't see him completing that sentence with "should happily and without moral reservation go out and gamble as much as they can afford to."
I'm a republican (or at least I vote so a majority of the time... voted for bush) and had no real problem with bennett prior to his hypocrisy re: gambling, and I don't have any serious problem with him now. I surely don't hate his guts. But he is a hypocrite, and that's that. You can't portray yourself as a pillar of morality (as he does), be director of a public interest group against gambling, and have a massive gambling problem without being a hypocrite. Unfortunately that is impossible.
We should only allow advertising to be done in certain places/manners. For example print ads in publications of general circulation, television commercials, product placement in places that consent (presumably for a fee), billboards, vehicular ads (bumper stickers, airplanes towing signs), banner (but not popup) ads on websites, and... that's all. All other forms of advertising, especially "direct marketing," should be illegal, and punishable by prison terms. Their annoyance outweighs the value they provide society. I yearn for the day that the Direct Marketing Association is a criminal organization, delegated to the likes of NABLA.
Commercial speech can be highly regulated, so as long as the message (buy my product!) can get out, there's no first amendment problem per se.
If I have not asked you about your product, you have no right to tell me about it. If it's good and I want it, I'll find out about it and possibly buy it. Word of mouth is the only truly legitimate form of advertising.
I concede that I'm quite radical on this issue. I despise all marketing. As Bill Hicks said... if you are in marketing, kill yourself. ("ooh, he's going for the anti-marketing dollar, clever!")
It's not that we've suddenly become more desirous of being left alone, it's that the pervasiveness of daily annoyances (spam, telemarketers, flyers on your doorknob, 5 pounds of junkmail a day, etc.) has increased to a breaking point. Socrates didn't get 5 pounds of junkmail and 13 telephone calls and 240 spams a day. Being left alone was taken for granted back then and humanity didn't need such laws to preserve it until now.
Every government in the history of this planet has had the ability/sovereign right to have restricted information in the interests of national security. Any government that didn't do so would be unable to win any war and would fall quite quickly.
This isn't about restricting your own information (i.e. the data you collect yourself). This is about restricting what others can do with their information (i.e. the data they collect themselves). No double standard, two totally different things, and what the government can do with its data is irrelevant to what citizens can do with theirs (in terms of keeping it secret, at least).
1. By voluntarily being and remaining a director of Empower America (a public interest group), Bennett speaks for the group and represents its agenda.
2. The group has made it clear that it is anti-gambling. Being against gambling also emcompasses being against the expansion of gambling. Why be against the expansion of gambling but not be against gambling? The group is against gambling. If you read about the group and its past statements, you'll realize this. Empower America is a right-wing thinktank. It's against homosexuality, atheism, communism, keeping prayer out of schools, abortion, Darwin, gamgling, drugs, "that rock music," violence on TV, and a slew of other right-wing positions. This isn't about gambling addiction. That's just one reason that certain people (who comprise groups such as EA) consider gambling (much like heroin) to be wrong--because it is/can be addictive. The group has stated that gambling is a moral problem (always on the theory that addiction=immorality) and, while they have not actively campaigned to rid the world of it, the group is for curtailing it as much as practicable. If these people could push a magic button and make all gambling disappear, they would do so.
3. I concur with the definition of hypocrite. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
4. Bennett's action as being and remaining a director of Empower America (an anti-gambling, among many other things, group) says (professes that) "I am against gambling."
5. His actions, on the other hand -- gambling (and being quite the Vegas high roller, as well... not just participating in a local raffle or $5 bingo game) -- say "I don't find this wrong." People don't actively, intentionally do things they think are wrong (barring any sociopathic tendencies, which I am presuming Bennett doesn't have, and for the sake of this discussion let's just presume he's not a sociopath). People can twist their minds in amazing and irrational ways to convince themselves that something they desire to do is not wrong, but that of course doesn't make it right, objectively or subjectively.
6. So, Bennet says (by virtue of his voluntary and continuing directorship)"Gambling is bad." He does not believe that, however, by virtue of his actions. He lost millions gambling.
Your theory is that one cannot be a hypocrite without speaking. That's blatantly not true. Speech is one form of professing something. Actions are another, and quite often the most common way of exuding hypocrisy. People are more mindful of their words than they are of their actions.
Bennett professed (by virtue of EA directorship) that he was against gambling. His gambling problem, however, shows he does not himself have that virtue, nor does he subjectively believe gambling to be wrong.
If the court (the government) is going to enforce a judgment making this guy take down his picture (restricting speech) then it is a first amendment issue. If they both sign contracts to go on "Judge Judy" to have the dispute resolved (the contestants on those court shows sign contracts agreeing that they will abide by the mock-judge's ruling; failure to do so is breach of contract) then it would not be a first amendment issue. As far as I know, Barb is suing in a real "gubment" court. Note that first amendment and right to privacy are not mutually exclusive issues.
If the cops looked through my walls it would violate the 4th amendment, unless they had a valid warrant. No first amendment issue, no right to privacy issue. Solely a 4th amendment search and seizure issue.
When you are a director of a public interest group that openly takes a stand on a public issue (gambling bad), you do so also, by implication.
The act of being (and remaining) director of a group that is publicly against gambling is what causes Bennett to "speak" out against gambling in this instance.
Am I saying by joining a group you are "saying" you are against everything that group is against? Not necessarily, although there is that presumption. But when you are a director of such a group, then yes, you are on the board and you speak for the group. Thus, when the group says something (gambling bad), the directors do also.
Hey I wish it weren't true... I don't hate the guy, but he's a blatant and express hypocrite and there's just no way around that.
Bennett is a director of Empower America, together with former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. . . . Empower America opposes the proliferation of casino gambling, and its co-chair, Kemp, recently lambasted lawmakers who "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." ~ Gaming Foe Characterized as High Roller, Journal Review
She's holding herself out as a public figure (and she is one by being miss vermont, anyway). As the lawyer said, the public has an interest in knowing if she lives up to the image she is portraying of herself. She's milking her public figure status for money/attention. It's a two-way street. If you are a public figure portraying yourself as a model of morality, the public always has an interest in knowing if you're full of bullshit and really an immoral piece of shit. For examle, Bill Bennett. He constantly holds himself out as a czar of morality, and the Right treats him as such. He's come out against porn, gambling, abortion, homosexuals, etc. So, when it turns out he has a huge gambling problem and has lost over a million bucks in casinos, the public has an interest in knowing that. If it were you or me (poor schlub nobody knows about) then making a website saying we have gambling problems may constitute harassment. Maybe. It would actually be more of a "false-light invasion of privacy" cause of action, and not all states have that.
Just to play devil's advocate here, what would you guys think of this if you could clearly see inside her house. Ya know, with one of those 600x zoom, infra-red heat-sensing 10,000 megapixel digital cameras that are just around the corner. Then would she have a case worthy of trumping the first amendment right to put said picture on the internet?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. that's the bottom line, and any law (i.e. DMCA) that infringes our right to do so is illegitimate, unamerican, and unconstitutional.
Ok, they can go on the norther border, too. As George Washington once said, the best way to protect our freedom is to protect our borders and keep the illegals out. No "freedom" is involved in crossing our borders w/out permission (which I am all for granting), so there is no irony in my sig at all.
We have tried to solve the matter in an amicable way,â said Hugh Brogan, Sendoâ(TM)s chief executive officer.
Translated: We tried to extort millions of dollars before filing suit, and they said no. Reminds me of IBM's past amicable actions.
I can see these things sweeping the lush banks of the Rio Grande, greatly reducing the burden on US Border Patrol. One US Border Patrol agent can round up about a dozen illegals per hour, whereas I'll bet this machine could snag at least 40 or so (with minor modifications). Technology kicks ass!
Aside from the fact that these are incredibly dumb animals, they have no reason to learn to avoid the machine. First time they experience it, they get sucked in and end up on my plate.
It's one of my favorite quotes which is the only reason I said anything :)
Totally off the subject, but just FYI your sig quote is wrong.. It's "A Foolish Consistency..." (totally changes the meaning... nothing foolish about just plain old consistency).
Are they trying to sell something? If so, pretend to place an order, find out where to send the check, and (assuming it's not a PO box) go there and hurt them severely. Even if it were a PO box you'd get the name of the business and could look it up.
1. Tax the sin to reduce it (seemingly good public policy).
2. Frequency of sinning goes down due to cost of sin tax.
3. Sin tax revenue thereby goes down.
4. Gov't decides it liked the sin-money.
5. Gov't thinks of new, crazy ways to tax us.
6. Gov't profits.
Moral? Keep on sinning. Protect yourself. If you quit smoking cigarettes, then they'll want to tax your water to make up for the lost tobacco-tax revenue.
exactly.
To me, this is no different than charging KKK members $1 to enforce local Jim Crow laws (if they don't pay $1 for each law every $50 years, then the law comes off the books). Would this be a valid way of getting rid of Jim Crow laws? No way, I'm afraid to say.
academic research is not marketing, unless they're researching the best way to ask alumni for money.
I don't see how one can say that Empower America formally taking the position against expansion of the gambling industry is "having no official position on gambling." If you are against X spreading, it's because you are against X in the first place, especially when X is a moral issue. Sometimes you just accept the fact that it's impossible to get rid of X completely, so all you can do is try to prevent it from spreading any further. Many times such a practical position is taken in respect to an issue, but that doesn't mean one isn't against the underlying issue.
I can't find anywhere on the web the completion of the "But adults on their own time..." sentence. I don't see him completing that sentence with "should happily and without moral reservation go out and gamble as much as they can afford to."
I'm a republican (or at least I vote so a majority of the time... voted for bush) and had no real problem with bennett prior to his hypocrisy re: gambling, and I don't have any serious problem with him now. I surely don't hate his guts. But he is a hypocrite, and that's that. You can't portray yourself as a pillar of morality (as he does), be director of a public interest group against gambling, and have a massive gambling problem without being a hypocrite. Unfortunately that is impossible.
I have guns as well. Praise the 2nd amendment.
And ban the rest.
We should only allow advertising to be done in certain places/manners. For example print ads in publications of general circulation, television commercials, product placement in places that consent (presumably for a fee), billboards, vehicular ads (bumper stickers, airplanes towing signs), banner (but not popup) ads on websites, and... that's all. All other forms of advertising, especially "direct marketing," should be illegal, and punishable by prison terms. Their annoyance outweighs the value they provide society. I yearn for the day that the Direct Marketing Association is a criminal organization, delegated to the likes of NABLA.
Commercial speech can be highly regulated, so as long as the message (buy my product!) can get out, there's no first amendment problem per se.
If I have not asked you about your product, you have no right to tell me about it. If it's good and I want it, I'll find out about it and possibly buy it. Word of mouth is the only truly legitimate form of advertising.
I concede that I'm quite radical on this issue. I despise all marketing. As Bill Hicks said... if you are in marketing, kill yourself. ("ooh, he's going for the anti-marketing dollar, clever!")
It's not that we've suddenly become more desirous of being left alone, it's that the pervasiveness of daily annoyances (spam, telemarketers, flyers on your doorknob, 5 pounds of junkmail a day, etc.) has increased to a breaking point. Socrates didn't get 5 pounds of junkmail and 13 telephone calls and 240 spams a day. Being left alone was taken for granted back then and humanity didn't need such laws to preserve it until now.
I didn't say there was an unlimited, absolute right to privacy. There isn't an unlimited, absolute right to free speech, either.
Every government in the history of this planet has had the ability/sovereign right to have restricted information in the interests of national security. Any government that didn't do so would be unable to win any war and would fall quite quickly.
This isn't about restricting your own information (i.e. the data you collect yourself). This is about restricting what others can do with their information (i.e. the data they collect themselves). No double standard, two totally different things, and what the government can do with its data is irrelevant to what citizens can do with theirs (in terms of keeping it secret, at least).
Kyllo v. U.S. 533 US 27 (2001) (summary).
The SCOTUS said the cops can't do this w/out a valid warrant. Illegal search and seizure per 4th amendment.
No, he is a hypocrite on this issue.
1. By voluntarily being and remaining a director of Empower America (a public interest group), Bennett speaks for the group and represents its agenda.
2. The group has made it clear that it is anti-gambling. Being against gambling also emcompasses being against the expansion of gambling. Why be against the expansion of gambling but not be against gambling? The group is against gambling. If you read about the group and its past statements, you'll realize this. Empower America is a right-wing thinktank. It's against homosexuality, atheism, communism, keeping prayer out of schools, abortion, Darwin, gamgling, drugs, "that rock music," violence on TV, and a slew of other right-wing positions. This isn't about gambling addiction. That's just one reason that certain people (who comprise groups such as EA) consider gambling (much like heroin) to be wrong--because it is/can be addictive. The group has stated that gambling is a moral problem (always on the theory that addiction=immorality) and, while they have not actively campaigned to rid the world of it, the group is for curtailing it as much as practicable. If these people could push a magic button and make all gambling disappear, they would do so.
3. I concur with the definition of hypocrite. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
4. Bennett's action as being and remaining a director of Empower America (an anti-gambling, among many other things, group) says (professes that) "I am against gambling."
5. His actions, on the other hand -- gambling (and being quite the Vegas high roller, as well... not just participating in a local raffle or $5 bingo game) -- say "I don't find this wrong." People don't actively, intentionally do things they think are wrong (barring any sociopathic tendencies, which I am presuming Bennett doesn't have, and for the sake of this discussion let's just presume he's not a sociopath). People can twist their minds in amazing and irrational ways to convince themselves that something they desire to do is not wrong, but that of course doesn't make it right, objectively or subjectively.
6. So, Bennet says (by virtue of his voluntary and continuing directorship)"Gambling is bad." He does not believe that, however, by virtue of his actions. He lost millions gambling.
Your theory is that one cannot be a hypocrite without speaking. That's blatantly not true. Speech is one form of professing something. Actions are another, and quite often the most common way of exuding hypocrisy. People are more mindful of their words than they are of their actions.
Bennett professed (by virtue of EA directorship) that he was against gambling. His gambling problem, however, shows he does not himself have that virtue, nor does he subjectively believe gambling to be wrong.
Thus, Bennett is a hypocrite.
QED.
If the court (the government) is going to enforce a judgment making this guy take down his picture (restricting speech) then it is a first amendment issue. If they both sign contracts to go on "Judge Judy" to have the dispute resolved (the contestants on those court shows sign contracts agreeing that they will abide by the mock-judge's ruling; failure to do so is breach of contract) then it would not be a first amendment issue. As far as I know, Barb is suing in a real "gubment" court. Note that first amendment and right to privacy are not mutually exclusive issues.
If the cops looked through my walls it would violate the 4th amendment, unless they had a valid warrant. No first amendment issue, no right to privacy issue. Solely a 4th amendment search and seizure issue.
When you are a director of a public interest group that openly takes a stand on a public issue (gambling bad), you do so also, by implication.
The act of being (and remaining) director of a group that is publicly against gambling is what causes Bennett to "speak" out against gambling in this instance.
Am I saying by joining a group you are "saying" you are against everything that group is against? Not necessarily, although there is that presumption. But when you are a director of such a group, then yes, you are on the board and you speak for the group. Thus, when the group says something (gambling bad), the directors do also.
Hey I wish it weren't true... I don't hate the guy, but he's a blatant and express hypocrite and there's just no way around that.
Bennett is a director of Empower America, together with former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. . . . Empower America opposes the proliferation of casino gambling, and its co-chair, Kemp, recently lambasted lawmakers who "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." ~ Gaming Foe Characterized as High Roller, Journal Review
She's holding herself out as a public figure (and she is one by being miss vermont, anyway). As the lawyer said, the public has an interest in knowing if she lives up to the image she is portraying of herself. She's milking her public figure status for money/attention. It's a two-way street. If you are a public figure portraying yourself as a model of morality, the public always has an interest in knowing if you're full of bullshit and really an immoral piece of shit. For examle, Bill Bennett. He constantly holds himself out as a czar of morality, and the Right treats him as such. He's come out against porn, gambling, abortion, homosexuals, etc. So, when it turns out he has a huge gambling problem and has lost over a million bucks in casinos, the public has an interest in knowing that. If it were you or me (poor schlub nobody knows about) then making a website saying we have gambling problems may constitute harassment. Maybe. It would actually be more of a "false-light invasion of privacy" cause of action, and not all states have that.
Just to play devil's advocate here, what would you guys think of this if you could clearly see inside her house. Ya know, with one of those 600x zoom, infra-red heat-sensing 10,000 megapixel digital cameras that are just around the corner. Then would she have a case worthy of trumping the first amendment right to put said picture on the internet?