(Look at the Ninth Federal Circuit {AKA "Ninth Circus"} for examples.)
I wouldn't expect a reasonable argument from someone who throws out this bit of right wing propaganda. The 9th Circuit doesn't come close to having the highest rate of overturned cases; they only have the highest number of total overturned cases because their total caseload is orders of magnitude larger than the other Circuit courts'. In any event, you're only looking at controversial Supreme Court decisions; the more clear cut cases don't necessarily get reviewed by the Supreme Court because there's no reason to do so. More case law is made by the Circuit Courts than by the Supreme Court.
No, it's not an interpretation. The 14th Amendment, when it says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" protects the rights granted in the 1st Amendment from meddling by the states, too.
You can be pretty sure that there's nothing objectionaly on broadcast channels while your kids are awake.
Sure, if by "objectionaly" you mean "naked people". I mean, I certainly don't want my 1-month old child to see boobies (which is why I insist that she be blindfolded when she eats), but you can still find violence, George Bush, and religions I don't agree with on broadcast TV at all hours of the day.
1) Until the court throws the law out, you have no idea whether it will.
Bullshit. Most of the time you have a very good idea, and so do the legislators who wrote the law. There are certainly cases where the fianl Supreme Court decision is 5-4 and it could really go either way, but Constitutional law is nowhere near as vague as you're making it out to be.
Oddly enough, the President doesn't get to decide exactly what obscure sections go into a defense spending law. If he did, you can bet that companies located in districts represented by Congressmen on the appropriations committee wouldn't just happen to get lots of big contracts.
Sure, you can maybe blame him for not vetoing the spending bill, but unless he really cared about this one expenditure, why would you expect him to?
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to take a long shower, because I fell really dirty after actually defending the President. But can you please save your blame of him for the tons of things that are actually his fault?
Are you suggesting that 2-year-olds don't display learned behavior? Can you explain the mechanism by which 2-year-olds adopted from non-English-speaking nations and raised from infancy in America have the innate ability to begin speaking English without learning?
When professional athlethes die from heart attacks, the cause is usually either some sort of heart defect or using drugs. The fact that aerobic exercise and a healthy diet won't prevent these deaths doesn't mean that people should bother to try to eliminate the much more common forms of heart disease that they will prevent.
Oddly enough, I was talking about the scenario mentioned in the comment I was replying to, which mentioned people who like to kill someone "for no reason". Sure, if you give someone a reason to kill you, it's probably best that they can't find you. If you're worried about people finding you to kill you for no reason, though, you're probably as crazy as them.
Why would someone who's going to kill another person at random for no reason need to use the Internet to track down the person they're going to kill, when they can find thousands of random people to kill for no reason just by walking around literally anywhere? Worrying that having your address online is going to lead to someone randomly killing you after they find it is infinitely less rational than worrying that someone's going to randomly come to your house and kill you if your house is visible to people walking past it, and therefore living in a hole in the ground with no visible entrance.
Neither "iTunes Music Store" nor "the iTunes application program" is a proposition, or statement with a true/false value. Your attempt to apply Boolean algebra to these phrases probably indicates that you learned about Boolean algebra last week, and still don't understand it. Thanks.
And when I search for "miserable failure" and find Michael Moore's website in the top 10 results, that proves Google's conservative bias.
As for "liar", umm, is Blair a Tory now? Clearly they're displaying anti-Labour bias there.
Now all I have to do is create a pro-Clinton video, get all of my friends to flag it as objectionable, and prove that YouTube is a right wing organization that censors liberal speech.
Unlike Slashdot, there is no tyranny of the majority on YouTube.
A "censored" comment on Slashdot, moderated down by one side of the debate, is only uncensored by the other side doing a majority of the moderations afterwards. If a majority of moderators want to suppress certain speech, there's nothing the minority can do about it.
On YouTube, "moderation" only works in one direction and a tiny minority can "censor" content at any time, but if the "censoring" is found to be unfair (as the content is not actually objectionable, just unpopular with certain users), the "censoring" is completely undone and won't be repeated.
Opinions may vary on whether having all-powerful employees on the site deciding what shouldn't be susceptible to censorship is better or worse than Slashdot's more closely democratic system (although obviously Slashdot isn't entirely democratic; not everyone gets mod points and the site's staff can still censor whatever they want, even if they mostly don't choose to do so), but YouTube certainly doesn't suffer from what you object to.
Nowhere in that documentation or in the terms of use does it state that in the period between flagging and review by YouTube employees, the content will be available with no warning. The "censorship" only "came from youtube" in that their software automatically adds the warning to flagged content. There was absolutely no decision by anyone at YouTube to "censor" a particular video based on its content.
If I create a document with the text "Bush sucks!" and someone drags it to the recycle bin on my windows computer, can I claim that Microsoft is censoring my political speech? Why not? After all, they created the feature that allows someone to take an action that will create a minor inconvenience if I want to view that speech again.
Of course, the fact that polio, unlike malaria, spreads from one human to another quite easily, making a strategy of killing potential carriers not particularly attractive, combined with the fact that a vaccine is easily made by killing the virus and then injecting it into people might have something to do with the different approaches too.
Next, can you explain how emphasizing condom use instead of just giving everyone an AIDS vaccine shows that doctors today are increibly stupid?
Actually, according to the article no content is removed without being reviewed, it's given a warning.
Also, according to the article, the flagging was removed before the article was actually posted on the website. That is, the author and editors knew that YouTube wasn't censoring the content and wrote an article about how they were censoring the content anyway. If that's doesn't show dishonesty and a complete lack of journalistic integrity, I don't know what does.
It's be like if a liberal news site posted an article with the headline "President Bush Kidnaps and Rapes Children", with 10 paragraphs about how the President raped children, then the last paragraph stated that actually he didn't rape children, but they wouldn't be surprised if he did some day, because after all he's a conservative.
No, the way the process is supposed to work and does work is that when a user flags a video as inappropriate, a warning is immediately put on it, as YouTube wants to err on the side of caution to avoid having the type of conservative groups who think seeing a flash of a nipple on TV will permanently damage any normal person viewing it complaining about how they're a porn site that must be shut down immediately.
If they did this without having a review process that causes each flagging to be reviewed so non-objectionable content can be unflagged, this would be a problem. As it is, it's a temporary inconvenience for unpopular but not objectionable content, but hardly "censorship".
The best part is that the article explains in detail how the flagging process and review that got it unflagged works, and then goes on to blame the liberals at Google for the users of youtube flagging content.
Umm, the problem isn't exploits that attack the web server they're running on, it's exploits that attack the browser they're being viewed with, making the cache sites as dangerous to users as the original sites with the exploits on them. Or, at least, dangerous to those users who still use an unpatched copy of IE that's vulnerable to these old exploits. And really, viewing a cache of a formerly malicious site is probably the least likely way they're going to get exploited.
Slashdot Mirror
(Look at the Ninth Federal Circuit {AKA "Ninth Circus"} for examples.)
I wouldn't expect a reasonable argument from someone who throws out this bit of right wing propaganda. The 9th Circuit doesn't come close to having the highest rate of overturned cases; they only have the highest number of total overturned cases because their total caseload is orders of magnitude larger than the other Circuit courts'. In any event, you're only looking at controversial Supreme Court decisions; the more clear cut cases don't necessarily get reviewed by the Supreme Court because there's no reason to do so. More case law is made by the Circuit Courts than by the Supreme Court.
The main problem is that it's really hard to catch the guys putting viruses on your computers when they're living in a parallel universe.
No, it's not an interpretation. The 14th Amendment, when it says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" protects the rights granted in the 1st Amendment from meddling by the states, too.
You can be pretty sure that there's nothing objectionaly on broadcast channels while your kids are awake.
Sure, if by "objectionaly" you mean "naked people". I mean, I certainly don't want my 1-month old child to see boobies (which is why I insist that she be blindfolded when she eats), but you can still find violence, George Bush, and religions I don't agree with on broadcast TV at all hours of the day.
1) Until the court throws the law out, you have no idea whether it will.
Bullshit. Most of the time you have a very good idea, and so do the legislators who wrote the law. There are certainly cases where the fianl Supreme Court decision is 5-4 and it could really go either way, but Constitutional law is nowhere near as vague as you're making it out to be.
And you didn't back up your purchased music files because...?
Right. Everyone bought iPods because everyone else had them. There may be a flaw in your logic.
Personally, I ordered my iPod an hour after the announcement, so your "no one ever" claim is patently false.
Oddly enough, the President doesn't get to decide exactly what obscure sections go into a defense spending law. If he did, you can bet that companies located in districts represented by Congressmen on the appropriations committee wouldn't just happen to get lots of big contracts.
Sure, you can maybe blame him for not vetoing the spending bill, but unless he really cared about this one expenditure, why would you expect him to?
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to take a long shower, because I fell really dirty after actually defending the President. But can you please save your blame of him for the tons of things that are actually his fault?
Are you suggesting that 2-year-olds don't display learned behavior? Can you explain the mechanism by which 2-year-olds adopted from non-English-speaking nations and raised from infancy in America have the innate ability to begin speaking English without learning?
When professional athlethes die from heart attacks, the cause is usually either some sort of heart defect or using drugs. The fact that aerobic exercise and a healthy diet won't prevent these deaths doesn't mean that people should bother to try to eliminate the much more common forms of heart disease that they will prevent.
They're probably so retarded they can't even spell "plain" and "ridiculous"!
Oddly enough, I was talking about the scenario mentioned in the comment I was replying to, which mentioned people who like to kill someone "for no reason". Sure, if you give someone a reason to kill you, it's probably best that they can't find you. If you're worried about people finding you to kill you for no reason, though, you're probably as crazy as them.
Why would someone who's going to kill another person at random for no reason need to use the Internet to track down the person they're going to kill, when they can find thousands of random people to kill for no reason just by walking around literally anywhere? Worrying that having your address online is going to lead to someone randomly killing you after they find it is infinitely less rational than worrying that someone's going to randomly come to your house and kill you if your house is visible to people walking past it, and therefore living in a hole in the ground with no visible entrance.
Considering I wasn't even replying to you, it's interesting that you think that what you said or didn't say should be relevant to my comment.
Last I checked, anyone who thinks that "correlation" means what you think it means is an idiot.
Neither "iTunes Music Store" nor "the iTunes application program" is a proposition, or statement with a true/false value. Your attempt to apply Boolean algebra to these phrases probably indicates that you learned about Boolean algebra last week, and still don't understand it. Thanks.
And when I search for "miserable failure" and find Michael Moore's website in the top 10 results, that proves Google's conservative bias.
As for "liar", umm, is Blair a Tory now? Clearly they're displaying anti-Labour bias there.
Now all I have to do is create a pro-Clinton video, get all of my friends to flag it as objectionable, and prove that YouTube is a right wing organization that censors liberal speech.
Unlike Slashdot, there is no tyranny of the majority on YouTube.
A "censored" comment on Slashdot, moderated down by one side of the debate, is only uncensored by the other side doing a majority of the moderations afterwards. If a majority of moderators want to suppress certain speech, there's nothing the minority can do about it.
On YouTube, "moderation" only works in one direction and a tiny minority can "censor" content at any time, but if the "censoring" is found to be unfair (as the content is not actually objectionable, just unpopular with certain users), the "censoring" is completely undone and won't be repeated.
Opinions may vary on whether having all-powerful employees on the site deciding what shouldn't be susceptible to censorship is better or worse than Slashdot's more closely democratic system (although obviously Slashdot isn't entirely democratic; not everyone gets mod points and the site's staff can still censor whatever they want, even if they mostly don't choose to do so), but YouTube certainly doesn't suffer from what you object to.
Nowhere in that documentation or in the terms of use does it state that in the period between flagging and review by YouTube employees, the content will be available with no warning. The "censorship" only "came from youtube" in that their software automatically adds the warning to flagged content. There was absolutely no decision by anyone at YouTube to "censor" a particular video based on its content.
If I create a document with the text "Bush sucks!" and someone drags it to the recycle bin on my windows computer, can I claim that Microsoft is censoring my political speech? Why not? After all, they created the feature that allows someone to take an action that will create a minor inconvenience if I want to view that speech again.
Of course, the fact that polio, unlike malaria, spreads from one human to another quite easily, making a strategy of killing potential carriers not particularly attractive, combined with the fact that a vaccine is easily made by killing the virus and then injecting it into people might have something to do with the different approaches too.
Next, can you explain how emphasizing condom use instead of just giving everyone an AIDS vaccine shows that doctors today are increibly stupid?
Actually, according to the article no content is removed without being reviewed, it's given a warning.
Also, according to the article, the flagging was removed before the article was actually posted on the website. That is, the author and editors knew that YouTube wasn't censoring the content and wrote an article about how they were censoring the content anyway. If that's doesn't show dishonesty and a complete lack of journalistic integrity, I don't know what does.
It's be like if a liberal news site posted an article with the headline "President Bush Kidnaps and Rapes Children", with 10 paragraphs about how the President raped children, then the last paragraph stated that actually he didn't rape children, but they wouldn't be surprised if he did some day, because after all he's a conservative.
No, the way the process is supposed to work and does work is that when a user flags a video as inappropriate, a warning is immediately put on it, as YouTube wants to err on the side of caution to avoid having the type of conservative groups who think seeing a flash of a nipple on TV will permanently damage any normal person viewing it complaining about how they're a porn site that must be shut down immediately.
If they did this without having a review process that causes each flagging to be reviewed so non-objectionable content can be unflagged, this would be a problem. As it is, it's a temporary inconvenience for unpopular but not objectionable content, but hardly "censorship".
The best part is that the article explains in detail how the flagging process and review that got it unflagged works, and then goes on to blame the liberals at Google for the users of youtube flagging content.
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
YouTube is censoring Slashdot now, too! Aieyeeee!
Umm, the problem isn't exploits that attack the web server they're running on, it's exploits that attack the browser they're being viewed with, making the cache sites as dangerous to users as the original sites with the exploits on them. Or, at least, dangerous to those users who still use an unpatched copy of IE that's vulnerable to these old exploits. And really, viewing a cache of a formerly malicious site is probably the least likely way they're going to get exploited.