Actually, the solution to lack of enforcement might be more laws.
IF the laws gave the people effected the ability to enforce them in alowing something like a small claims court action to get 3 or 5 times the costs of the service or something then it might be enforced.
However, we don't need a bunch of laws to fix this problem. We need a small few designed to ensure the consumer gets what they paid for. A law simply stating that: Any ISP must be obvious in plainly stating what they are selling in their advertisements so that a common person can understand and can take no steps by their own or a contracted party's initiative to limit the communications to anything below what was sold based on that advertisement unless in cases where network maintenance or an attack on the network make it necessary.
Then simply throw a few extra lines in about having to document any and all restrictions based on the maintenance or attack and make them available to all their subscribers and the FCC upon request. You can even throw in a penalty that allows consumers to recoup 3 times the costs of service if they are violated in small claims court (single filing fee, no need for lawyers) and 10 times as much plus a fine if they are found to have abused the Maintenance and attack exceptions.
This can be condense into a couple paragraphs, gives the consumer to do what the government refuses (I can't believe that consumer protection laws don't already apply to things like the Comcast Bit Torrent situation). And isn't over regulative. Of course it doesn't cover things like ISP's over selling their bandwidth and their up to 6 meg service becoming 2 megs when everyone is on line at once, but at least you don't have the problem of Verizon favoring their own VoIP product over Skype or whatever.
You need to add something to your explanation. Not only does the ISP have the position to affect the quality of the others business by capping or slowing bandwidth, they are cheating you the consumer out of what you already paid for because if they just gave you that, then they couldn't have a negative effect outside of your own consumption choices.
I don't see offering a better service as a problem with Net Neutrality. I see not delivering the customer what they expect (the service they signed up for per the advertisements) in order to promote their own offering as the biggest problem. If they just give the consumer what they paid for (the advertised speeds), then comcasts services couldn't be in a position to "affect the quality of the other's business"
You're right in a way, and wrong in a way. Law enforcement officers hold an office of Public Trust. While it's correct that they are not *employees* of the Public, insofar as any member of the Public cannot order them about, they are still accountable to the Public (and all of its constituents thereof).
No, they are no more and probably less in practice, accountable to the public then you or I am. Cops and public officials are given greater lenience in violations of laws when they are performing their jobs. It's even worse with cops because you can't vote them out of office. Even you elected officials do not have the authority to directly fire them.
This "they work for me because I'm a tax payer" all stems from a romantic notion that politicians are worried about getting reelected and do not want to piss the populace off. The You work for me or the I pay your salary is little more then Hyperbole . Union contracts protect most police from that kind of abusive influence and the politicians simply aren't afraid to piss the people off anymore.
And don't think for a minute that without you the government wouldn't exist, they pass laws all the time to piss people off. How about another tax hike, how about making driking and driving laws so strict that using mouthwash 10 minutes before driving to work will put you over the legal limit, how about the war on drugs and the laws against certain harmless ones like Pot, how about all the regulations that drive up the costs of consumer goods, how about the laws about speed on straight roads in the middle of nowhere with no traffic besides you and the bugs. Yes, you have a say in government in theory, but it's not working for you in any way.
Video recordings are a powerful means by which to ensure that accountability is retained. Thus it does have a great and necessary bearing on the taxpayers.
Accountability is another thing. I never spoke against accountability, I only spoke against the idea of ownership of the government or who was who's employer. By all means, the police need to be accountable for their actions as well do the politicians. This is done by using the same systems as they use, the courts. Video taping simply makes it easier to show when they do something wrong. Public opinion doesn't really matter in courts unless it's used to influence a jury (which I suspect this article is attempting to do) which can lead to crimes not being prosecutable because of it becoming impossible for the defendant (in our case, a cop) to get a fair trial. An no, not matter how pissed we are, we don't want to stop giving fair trials because it will come back and bite you sometime too.
What a Naive Fool you are. Perhaps you are what they termed as a Useful Idiot.
When has the government ever regulated something that hasn't opened a bunch of loop holes that allow the people/companies with money avoid the regulations or simple over regulated the industry and in effect created monopolies because it did so much to bar entry from smaller competitors and favors the large or existing ones. I mean seriously, just look around. Pay particular attention to Fanken's comment and you will see how fuck the regulations are headed for.
The arse holes that complain the most about the government that 'controls us' are the very same arse holes that are really trying to 'control us' that minority of psychopathic corporate executives with a complete absence of conscience, empathy and morality, the very worst that humanity has to offer. Make no mistake, you need to be controlled.
Here is the difference between the two sets you attempt to describe, one side doesn't want you to do anything unless they approve and if it can be turned into something they don't approve of it, it must be banned too. The other side is similar except that they want to jail you for a long time if you turn it into something they disprove of. In the end, you are brainwashed into thinking one if better then the other when the reality is that less is more if you don't cross them.
Now, the issue of net neutrality is not that FoxNew might load faster the the Daily Kos. It's that the Daily Kos may be slowed down purposely to favor Fox News. I suspect that you might not know the difference so I will attempt to illustrate it for you. You as a consumer purchase services from companies. These services might be internet service and you make your choice based on what the company advertises. Now if you purchase something based on an advertisement and that service provider gives you less that advertised, then something is already wrong.
But here is where net neutrality comes into play. In a neutral net, your ISP cannot take steps to slow any communications or interfere with them to speeds or delivery below what they advertised to sell you the service. There is not a problem with them giving you more, but they need to give you what you think you are paying for (so Foxnews can still load faster then the Daily Kos, The daily Kos just can't be manipulated to be slower then it should be given your connection).
Without net neutrality, the ISP can restrict communications and slow the Daily Kos in favor of FoxNews or as we seen with the bittorent situation and ComCast. I'm not sure why this isn't already covered by consumer protection laws as it's clearly false advertising and possibly bait and switch regardless of what the fine print in the contract you never sign but are free to navigate some website buried in all the contradictory statements. However, our smart and fearless leaders do not think this is something worthy of their time so it's mental masturbation and the call for them to fuck things up in regulation- the more the better because then they will be the one to come to your aid and fix it again and again and again and again. Meanwhile, you will still be there decrying how one is evil and the other is your hero.
All we need is a simply one or two paragraph law that state these simple things in no particular order.
All internet services providers must be honest their advertising and clearly and plainly list all restrictions to the service in an obvious way that common people can easily understand
All ISPs must have an open or unrestricted offering in which no communications are blocked or adjusted at all other then to regulate the contracted speed the consumer purchased
No internet service provider, selling services to the public or private companies or acting in a network hub may restrict the traffic of any third party to any rates bellow the consumer's contracted rates based on the payments or refusal of payments of any third party.
They didn't say it was wire tapping, they said the wire tapping laws.
I havn't read the exact law, but under the name of wire tapping there is probably a clause about recording conversations in which all involved parties must be informed of the recording. This would be applied outside the wiretapping but still be in the wire tapping laws.
Really? What will the Streisand effect state to the people? That two kids have been arrested and are facing 16 years in the "pound me in the ass" real prison for video taping some cops? I mean the only reason this story has legs is not because they attempted to get the video pulled, but because some teen is being represented by the ACLU in which he could face 16 years in prison for making the video in the first place.
No one is going to resign, if anything, they will be patting themselves on their own backs saying I bet no one will attempt to video tape us now because they don't want the long and costly court battle or the possible 16 years of their life tossed down the drain.
You are not the employer and they are not your employees- even if you are a tax payer of that state. They are employees of the government not you. You can't tell them what to do, you can't tell them when to show up to work or leave, you can't tell them what their pay is or what their benefit packages will be, you can't even tell them where to do their jobs. They are not in any way your employee and you are not in any way their employer. Public servant does not mean working for the public, it means working for the government. Public in this sense has no direction to the public in general, it's meant to denote the sector in which work is duplicated as in Private verses Public and has no bearing concerning tax payers at all.
Ugh. I haven't seen any evidence of this at all. The gay people that I know haven't been 'conditioned' to be gay, I'm pretty sure. In fact, I'd say based on their lives, they were conditioned to not be gay, but ended up that way anyway.
You don't see any evidence of air or different elements in the air yet you believe it to be true. Human sexuality is a psycho-conditioned behavioral response to environmental, social, financial, and other factors. Whether you see it or not is your choice but it's obvious in different societies in how they treat sexuality. And lets face it, unless there is a mental problem, the act of sex is physically mechanical in it's rawest elements. what is left is selection and that boils down to preference and availability- both subjective and conditioned responses.
Trust me when I say that gays' are not genetic mutants or mentally handicapped as being born like that would imply.
I have a friend who hates cilantro, and another that hates broccoli. It's not because they've been conditioned to it, they just don't like it; there are, in fact, genetic differences between people that cause them to find the taste of broccoli or cilantro distasteful. I like both of them, and most people don't mind them, but that doesn't make them defective or genetically inferior, just different. I've always figured that gay people are like that too. They just like people of the same sex; I like people of the opposite sex. It's just part of who we are, and doesn't have anything to do with conditioning.
The like and dislike of tastes like cilantro or broccoli or whatever is conditioned too. There are two known sets of genes or gene states in which taste is either heighten or suppressed to some degree but the actual like and dislike is preferential not genetic. The difference in the genes would be that they can taste more of the cilantro in which it's soapy flavor and aroma comes obviously through where it's bitter hot flavor is what most the rest of us taste. Now because people both like and dislike the heightened flavors, it must be a preference and not something they were born with. In other words, it's Psychosomatic whether you are conscious of the interactions or not. An example of an influence that caused the preference might be a great aunt washing your mouth out with soap for cussing at age 4 in which you don't remember at all, but you are repulsed by old ladies and the taste of soap now.
You are right in that gay people are similar to those who like or dislike broccoli, they act on influences either known or unknown to them, but it's not genetic, it's conditioned behavioral response. And yes, pushing someone to hard not to be something can force them into being it because of our inherent rebellious nature which is also related to emotions like greed, envy, distrust and hate.
Your ideas intrigue me, could you please direct me how to sign up for your newsletter?
Actually, you're spouting nothing but "New World Order bullshit" that has been around since before either of us were born. I've been here long enough to have seed it spewed on Clinton, Bush before him, and Reagan too. It's already started with Obama and of course you already mentioned W. I'm sure if Carter could have coughed in the white house without screwing something up, he would have been on the list too.
Perhaps you need to stop looking at who is supposed to be involved and focus on what and who is saying it. It's really all just recycles shit and your disdain for Bush and company simply enforces your interpretation of it.
SO you are saying that going to the aid of our allies who were attacked and defending themselves doesn't count so that means we were the aggressors?
Simply fucking amazing how you lefties (and yes, I'm going to assume you are a lefty pussy because of your "right=wing" comment) reinterpret everything in order to support your view. Fuck, I bet you head would have exploded by now with all the facts not matching your reality if it wasn't for Fox News getting a few things screwed up so you can claim all sorts of crap about them as a release.
Lol.. My God.. Who said it was my God? Just because I know of something doesn't mean I take ownership of it. You also need to read the thread and spend a fraction of the time you use thinking up what you think are witty responses on investigate what your speaking of.
Anyways, the religions throughout history were used as a way to set authority in order for rules and laws to be established to keep the peace and for the protection of the society. Two people fighting over the same girl or a dishonest person among the midst of a population is detrimental to all that (more so in the past then in the present). Look at how many laws are broken and people are convicted each year because someone cheated on someone else. Everything from assault to vandalism to murder and in between stem from infidelity in relationships. And if children are involved, look out, you are either putting a kid out there with half the support he should have, or you are always paying for them while someone else raises your family. We have orderly ways to force people into hating each other peaceably not, not so much back then.
The God we are speaking of, doesn't pay attention to what consenting adults do until it's time to gain eternal life or ask him for a favor. He's not looking into the bedroom or anything of the sorts, he just knows. He set some rules down, and if you follow them, you gain his favor, if you don't follow them, you don't. If you really piss him off, he reserves a special place for your soul.
Now the only reason this was brought up is because of the reference to "the Mosaic laws of the old testament" mentioned by the op in which I explained the difference between the christian covenant and how it differs. This difference was then questioned and then explained. Don't attempt to make it more then that.
Actually, being gay is a conditioned behavior in which someone chooses to repress or act upon much like finding the color yellow pleasing or displeasing. It's quite possible that they have not had any choice in the matter so it still can not be a choice but they weren't "born that way". It's not a "born that way" or anything else that would suggest someone who is gay would be defective or genetically inferior then any normal person. Gay people, just like any other persons, are genetically equal, superior, and or inferior given the population in the same way as everyone else in this world is in relation to each other. In other words, there is no "gay impairment". But that's besides the point and not even relevant to this discussion.
And no, if you believe the bible and God created all things, then you will know that God stopped and gave people "Free Will" in which they make their own choices. Plus, if you are also going to push the bible, then you have to accept the works of Satan and demonic influences in which God allows. So that logic is just as broke as pretending to know what God likes or dislikes.
Even at that, I've never found or have been shown where God even cares about homosexuality other than two men have sex is forbidden.
That's my point on claiming to speak for God in what he hates. Unless he specifically says it, then it little more then someone's imagination or assumption base on very little information. The bible says very little about homosexuality other then not screwing the same sex or dressing like the opposite sex. And in some of that, it's not pretending to be God's spoken word, it's someone's law who is ruling over God's people. IT may be an anointed leader, but it's not God saying some of it.
Well, yea until the news headlines is "Armed robber evades police chopper by employing military technology that makes him invisible to the high tech night-vision designed to track suspects in the dark." Followed with a headline, "City counsel is to decide whether to spend 10 billion dollars or not to upgrade the aging state of the art police copters purchased not just 5 years ago" followed by the headline "schools suspend bus service in bid to save money afte the last levee failed.".
Yea, it will be buried until it's politically advantageous to someone.
So if someone harms one of the kids then the reckless endangerment kicks in?
No, the potential for harm has to be likely. Likely as in probably. With the police providing security, it's not likely one of them will be harmed.
And I know for a fact that WBC has been physically attacked while on protest. In particular some WBC idiot stamping on a american flag got his ass beat more or less in front of the police by a good ol' boy in eastern washington. The police sauntered over and stopped things in their own time.
That's fine and all, but can you show where the kids were in real danger and that danger was any more likely then getting hit by a car crossing the street or any other normal activity that society sees as normal? Something being dangerous isn't really enough. You also have to remember that the cops were more or less allowing an adult get what's coming for something they probably didn't agree with. They failed in their expected duties (probably on purpose too). However, a failure in something is an acceptable risk as the expectation of failure isn't there until it becomes obvious, otherwise you could get charged for endangerment for letting your kid walk down the street with his shoe laces untied.
As for what CPS could do, and the lawsuits that result, you would be surprised at how long it can take to unsnarl CPS actions and how resistant they can be to suit. "Family Court" is _almost_ as fair as Gitmo.
Well, for common folk like us, yes. But for people attempting to remain high profile with politically unfriendly views that have already stood the tests of courts, no. The first thing they would do is probably file a federal lawsuit claiming the CPS action is retaliatory to speech which is automatically a violation of the First amendment. This will tie the CPS's hands considerably, move a federal jurisdiction into it requiring less snarling in the first place and probably get the ACLU on their side as well as several international "human rights" organizations. This quickly turns into a career ender for whoever made the call at the CPS to get involved and whoever supports the call at the CPS.
You can't use the government to abuse someone's free speech rights. It's that simple, attempting to corrupt different laws to do so or punish people for holding unpopular beliefs is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent. Selectively interpreting laws will not come out favorable for anyone attempting to do so because you are entitle to equal protection under the law and are guaranteed not to be prosecuted for a post facto law or after the fact interpretation which would be the same if they are twisting an existing law in order to stop someone's speech.
God said that once you were married, you became one and could never be separated.
Mosses required a couple to get a divorce because their hearts hated each other so much that it would cause them to be damned. This is where the rule allowing divorce which directly contradicts God's will to be established.
Jesus talks about this in Mathew 19 in which he said that except for unfaithfulness, you can't divorce. And if you do for any other reason, then remarrying will be adultery which is also forbidden in the bible.
It's one of those because of man, not because of god's intent. the leaders of the religion allow it because the alternative is worse, but God's view (if you believe his view was expressed in the bible) is that once you are married, you become one and do not separate again. When Jesus talks about becoming a eunuch, he is saying that if you can't remain as one, then don't attempt to become another again, just give up on conjugal duties altogether because you need to remain faithful.
I guess some clarification is needed here. The law actually says it's not a violation is the "owner of a copy" of a copyrighted work loads the program into memory as part of using the program.
I guess the distinction is that if you are not an owner of the copy, then it counts as a copy also. If you are the owner of a copy, then it's expressly not counted. And I need to make sure we are clear that we are talking about a copy of the program, not the copyrights to the program. You're right except that I think the lack of distinction was causing some issues for people.
Yes, That would count as copying unless the multiple machines were necessary to the activation of the machine (memory or ram disk) or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. Or with respect to machine maintenance in which (1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and (2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
Who says he made them? Certainly not any bible or religions organization that I know of. God Mad man-mankind and gave them free will. Saying god created Fags is about as rediculous as claiming what he likes or hates.
The Westboro whackos seems to think that god is obsessed with hating gays and pretty much everyone else that doesn't behave in strict accordance the Mosaic laws of the old testament; saying God hates Jedi is the ridiculous logical extension of that logic; and therefore ridicules the Westboro Baptist Church's dogma.
I guess even a blind squirrel will find a nut every now and then. I agree with this point as it makes perfect sense. However, I'm not sure it's "the Mosaic laws of the old testament" as the covenant of Christianity is premised on the ability to ask forgiveness for our sins and repent as god found that we could never follow his will exactly as outlined with a free will. It's sort of like why divorce is permitted but forbidden, Jesus said god knew we would make mistakes and couldn't follow the rules so he gave us an out that we should avoid taking.
It's not the views you have to respect, it's his ability to have views that you need to respect. You can disagree with anything he says or believes in, you just can't stop him from believing or saying them if he isn't infringing on any of your rights when doing so.
I think you are both saying the same things and semantics are simply getting in the way. Respect can have a dual meaning in the context of the statements as in it can modify what is being said, as well as the right to say it. I believe you both were speaking to the right to say something, not about what was being said.
I used to play a game in school with a couple of classmates in which we purposely set out to obfuscate out points until the very end of the statements while leaning into a vulgar or disrespectful direction then bringing it totally back to innocence. Anyways, we purposely attempted to mix semantics like that to give the wrong impression. I think this happened by accident here but I see the same issues surrounding it.
Your serious side has some fatal flaws. Thorwing a kid out of an airplane with a tarp and some ropes would be reckless endangerment (if not homicide). Having the kid go to school and learn to skydive, getting him certified and letting him practice at sanctioned airports would mitigate the endangerment. So would having police protection.
Think of having the police protection being the difference between making the kid go out and street fight verses enrolling into a martial arts form and then attending and competing in the competitions.
You see, the endangerment isn't about the child being in dangerous situations, it's about the likelihood of being injured from those situations. Otherwise letting kids climb trees would be endangerment. So if the cops are there to keep the peace, then the likelihood of them being harmed from the danger wouldn't be an element and your CPS wouldn't be able to do anything at all without a serious lawsuit that would simply fund their future activities.
My grandmother used to say shit in one hand and wish in the other, then see which one fills up first.
If they sued me, or their surviving reletives tried to, they would get a steaming pile of shit because that's about all I have in my name. Almost everything is either tucked away in a trust of some sort and I'm simply an employee, or it went by-by when the ex figured she could do better with the neighbor's nephew.
Thankfully, my distrust in the government made my breakup less expensive for me. But anyways, attempting to goad someone into violence so they can suit you has got to be one of the absolute dumbest ideas ever. I have my assets hidden but others might not have anything at all except the self respect they just stepped on in order to incite the violence. These people might be better off in jail with a structured learning environment, 3 balanced meals a day, and a comfortable out of the weather place to sleep at night.
I can easily see the judge say, you lose everything you own and have some guy in rags empty his pockets to give Phelp's crew a couple mismatched buttons and 55 cents in change, then proudly jot off into what would be a vacation to him- jail for a couple weeks.
Look up a pineapple and it should give you a hint. Oh yea, your probably going to want to view the revision3 results.
Anyways, if I have access to the wifi, I can easily trick you into connecting to my access and then I'm your encrypted endpoint. WPA2 works, but I moved the middle and end points for a classic attack.
Entirely too long? I had to read your post before I realized that someone attempted a joke. But then it hit me and made it more funny then it otherwise should have been. If you're aging, I'm probably ready to retire.
Until that judge goes to a convention 60 miles from your home and gets shot with a.30-06. And you owning one or even possessing a single round won't mean much because most criminals get rid of the evidence linking them to the crime. If you are on the list, it won't be pleasant.
BTW, it doesn't even have to be a convention, you could be camping or on vacation somewhere secluded and it happens, then you somehow get pointed to, the list shows up, and bamm, you are making jail house love to the Taliban version of Bubba.
Actually, nothing will probably ever happen. But this just illustrates the dangers of both the government keeping lists and making comments on public message boards. It's like getting pissed at some crack head and saying you are going to kill him if he doesn't leave you alone then the cops want to talk to you when he attempts to rob his dealer and gets killed in an alley not to far from where you argued with him. I know you know what I'm talking about, just about every Cop Drama where someone is investigating a murder on TV or in the movies has someone who becomes a suspect because of the wrong words blurted out in anger. It's how they fill the time so you don't leave the theator with half a tub of popcorn and pissed because you got ripped off or they can sneak in extra commercials while you are yelling how stupid they are for ignoring the obvious killer and going after some dork who was just angry. Except in this case, you won't have the benefit of someone explaining the context of the comment, just a list with the words. And in the real world, cops are extremely lazy, the stop searching for the truth once they can wrangle something in their heads. (and yes, that's from personal experience)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the solution to lack of enforcement might be more laws.
IF the laws gave the people effected the ability to enforce them in alowing something like a small claims court action to get 3 or 5 times the costs of the service or something then it might be enforced.
However, we don't need a bunch of laws to fix this problem. We need a small few designed to ensure the consumer gets what they paid for. A law simply stating that: Any ISP must be obvious in plainly stating what they are selling in their advertisements so that a common person can understand and can take no steps by their own or a contracted party's initiative to limit the communications to anything below what was sold based on that advertisement unless in cases where network maintenance or an attack on the network make it necessary.
Then simply throw a few extra lines in about having to document any and all restrictions based on the maintenance or attack and make them available to all their subscribers and the FCC upon request. You can even throw in a penalty that allows consumers to recoup 3 times the costs of service if they are violated in small claims court (single filing fee, no need for lawyers) and 10 times as much plus a fine if they are found to have abused the Maintenance and attack exceptions.
This can be condense into a couple paragraphs, gives the consumer to do what the government refuses (I can't believe that consumer protection laws don't already apply to things like the Comcast Bit Torrent situation). And isn't over regulative. Of course it doesn't cover things like ISP's over selling their bandwidth and their up to 6 meg service becoming 2 megs when everyone is on line at once, but at least you don't have the problem of Verizon favoring their own VoIP product over Skype or whatever.
You need to add something to your explanation. Not only does the ISP have the position to affect the quality of the others business by capping or slowing bandwidth, they are cheating you the consumer out of what you already paid for because if they just gave you that, then they couldn't have a negative effect outside of your own consumption choices.
I don't see offering a better service as a problem with Net Neutrality. I see not delivering the customer what they expect (the service they signed up for per the advertisements) in order to promote their own offering as the biggest problem. If they just give the consumer what they paid for (the advertised speeds), then comcasts services couldn't be in a position to "affect the quality of the other's business"
No, they are no more and probably less in practice, accountable to the public then you or I am. Cops and public officials are given greater lenience in violations of laws when they are performing their jobs. It's even worse with cops because you can't vote them out of office. Even you elected officials do not have the authority to directly fire them.
This "they work for me because I'm a tax payer" all stems from a romantic notion that politicians are worried about getting reelected and do not want to piss the populace off. The You work for me or the I pay your salary is little more then Hyperbole . Union contracts protect most police from that kind of abusive influence and the politicians simply aren't afraid to piss the people off anymore.
And don't think for a minute that without you the government wouldn't exist, they pass laws all the time to piss people off. How about another tax hike, how about making driking and driving laws so strict that using mouthwash 10 minutes before driving to work will put you over the legal limit, how about the war on drugs and the laws against certain harmless ones like Pot, how about all the regulations that drive up the costs of consumer goods, how about the laws about speed on straight roads in the middle of nowhere with no traffic besides you and the bugs. Yes, you have a say in government in theory, but it's not working for you in any way.
Accountability is another thing. I never spoke against accountability, I only spoke against the idea of ownership of the government or who was who's employer. By all means, the police need to be accountable for their actions as well do the politicians. This is done by using the same systems as they use, the courts. Video taping simply makes it easier to show when they do something wrong. Public opinion doesn't really matter in courts unless it's used to influence a jury (which I suspect this article is attempting to do) which can lead to crimes not being prosecutable because of it becoming impossible for the defendant (in our case, a cop) to get a fair trial. An no, not matter how pissed we are, we don't want to stop giving fair trials because it will come back and bite you sometime too.
What a Naive Fool you are. Perhaps you are what they termed as a Useful Idiot.
When has the government ever regulated something that hasn't opened a bunch of loop holes that allow the people/companies with money avoid the regulations or simple over regulated the industry and in effect created monopolies because it did so much to bar entry from smaller competitors and favors the large or existing ones. I mean seriously, just look around. Pay particular attention to Fanken's comment and you will see how fuck the regulations are headed for.
Here is the difference between the two sets you attempt to describe, one side doesn't want you to do anything unless they approve and if it can be turned into something they don't approve of it, it must be banned too. The other side is similar except that they want to jail you for a long time if you turn it into something they disprove of. In the end, you are brainwashed into thinking one if better then the other when the reality is that less is more if you don't cross them.
Now, the issue of net neutrality is not that FoxNew might load faster the the Daily Kos. It's that the Daily Kos may be slowed down purposely to favor Fox News. I suspect that you might not know the difference so I will attempt to illustrate it for you. You as a consumer purchase services from companies. These services might be internet service and you make your choice based on what the company advertises. Now if you purchase something based on an advertisement and that service provider gives you less that advertised, then something is already wrong.
But here is where net neutrality comes into play. In a neutral net, your ISP cannot take steps to slow any communications or interfere with them to speeds or delivery below what they advertised to sell you the service. There is not a problem with them giving you more, but they need to give you what you think you are paying for (so Foxnews can still load faster then the Daily Kos, The daily Kos just can't be manipulated to be slower then it should be given your connection).
Without net neutrality, the ISP can restrict communications and slow the Daily Kos in favor of FoxNews or as we seen with the bittorent situation and ComCast. I'm not sure why this isn't already covered by consumer protection laws as it's clearly false advertising and possibly bait and switch regardless of what the fine print in the contract you never sign but are free to navigate some website buried in all the contradictory statements. However, our smart and fearless leaders do not think this is something worthy of their time so it's mental masturbation and the call for them to fuck things up in regulation- the more the better because then they will be the one to come to your aid and fix it again and again and again and again. Meanwhile, you will still be there decrying how one is evil and the other is your hero.
All we need is a simply one or two paragraph law that state these simple things in no particular order.
They didn't say it was wire tapping, they said the wire tapping laws.
I havn't read the exact law, but under the name of wire tapping there is probably a clause about recording conversations in which all involved parties must be informed of the recording. This would be applied outside the wiretapping but still be in the wire tapping laws.
Really? What will the Streisand effect state to the people? That two kids have been arrested and are facing 16 years in the "pound me in the ass" real prison for video taping some cops? I mean the only reason this story has legs is not because they attempted to get the video pulled, but because some teen is being represented by the ACLU in which he could face 16 years in prison for making the video in the first place.
No one is going to resign, if anything, they will be patting themselves on their own backs saying I bet no one will attempt to video tape us now because they don't want the long and costly court battle or the possible 16 years of their life tossed down the drain.
You are not the employer and they are not your employees- even if you are a tax payer of that state. They are employees of the government not you. You can't tell them what to do, you can't tell them when to show up to work or leave, you can't tell them what their pay is or what their benefit packages will be, you can't even tell them where to do their jobs. They are not in any way your employee and you are not in any way their employer. Public servant does not mean working for the public, it means working for the government. Public in this sense has no direction to the public in general, it's meant to denote the sector in which work is duplicated as in Private verses Public and has no bearing concerning tax payers at all.
You don't see any evidence of air or different elements in the air yet you believe it to be true. Human sexuality is a psycho-conditioned behavioral response to environmental, social, financial, and other factors. Whether you see it or not is your choice but it's obvious in different societies in how they treat sexuality. And lets face it, unless there is a mental problem, the act of sex is physically mechanical in it's rawest elements. what is left is selection and that boils down to preference and availability- both subjective and conditioned responses.
Trust me when I say that gays' are not genetic mutants or mentally handicapped as being born like that would imply.
The like and dislike of tastes like cilantro or broccoli or whatever is conditioned too. There are two known sets of genes or gene states in which taste is either heighten or suppressed to some degree but the actual like and dislike is preferential not genetic. The difference in the genes would be that they can taste more of the cilantro in which it's soapy flavor and aroma comes obviously through where it's bitter hot flavor is what most the rest of us taste. Now because people both like and dislike the heightened flavors, it must be a preference and not something they were born with. In other words, it's Psychosomatic whether you are conscious of the interactions or not. An example of an influence that caused the preference might be a great aunt washing your mouth out with soap for cussing at age 4 in which you don't remember at all, but you are repulsed by old ladies and the taste of soap now.
You are right in that gay people are similar to those who like or dislike broccoli, they act on influences either known or unknown to them, but it's not genetic, it's conditioned behavioral response. And yes, pushing someone to hard not to be something can force them into being it because of our inherent rebellious nature which is also related to emotions like greed, envy, distrust and hate.
Your ideas intrigue me, could you please direct me how to sign up for your newsletter?
Actually, you're spouting nothing but "New World Order bullshit" that has been around since before either of us were born. I've been here long enough to have seed it spewed on Clinton, Bush before him, and Reagan too. It's already started with Obama and of course you already mentioned W. I'm sure if Carter could have coughed in the white house without screwing something up, he would have been on the list too.
Perhaps you need to stop looking at who is supposed to be involved and focus on what and who is saying it. It's really all just recycles shit and your disdain for Bush and company simply enforces your interpretation of it.
SO you are saying that going to the aid of our allies who were attacked and defending themselves doesn't count so that means we were the aggressors?
Simply fucking amazing how you lefties (and yes, I'm going to assume you are a lefty pussy because of your "right=wing" comment) reinterpret everything in order to support your view. Fuck, I bet you head would have exploded by now with all the facts not matching your reality if it wasn't for Fox News getting a few things screwed up so you can claim all sorts of crap about them as a release.
Lol.. My God.. Who said it was my God? Just because I know of something doesn't mean I take ownership of it. You also need to read the thread and spend a fraction of the time you use thinking up what you think are witty responses on investigate what your speaking of.
Anyways, the religions throughout history were used as a way to set authority in order for rules and laws to be established to keep the peace and for the protection of the society. Two people fighting over the same girl or a dishonest person among the midst of a population is detrimental to all that (more so in the past then in the present). Look at how many laws are broken and people are convicted each year because someone cheated on someone else. Everything from assault to vandalism to murder and in between stem from infidelity in relationships. And if children are involved, look out, you are either putting a kid out there with half the support he should have, or you are always paying for them while someone else raises your family. We have orderly ways to force people into hating each other peaceably not, not so much back then.
The God we are speaking of, doesn't pay attention to what consenting adults do until it's time to gain eternal life or ask him for a favor. He's not looking into the bedroom or anything of the sorts, he just knows. He set some rules down, and if you follow them, you gain his favor, if you don't follow them, you don't. If you really piss him off, he reserves a special place for your soul.
Now the only reason this was brought up is because of the reference to "the Mosaic laws of the old testament" mentioned by the op in which I explained the difference between the christian covenant and how it differs. This difference was then questioned and then explained. Don't attempt to make it more then that.
Actually, being gay is a conditioned behavior in which someone chooses to repress or act upon much like finding the color yellow pleasing or displeasing. It's quite possible that they have not had any choice in the matter so it still can not be a choice but they weren't "born that way". It's not a "born that way" or anything else that would suggest someone who is gay would be defective or genetically inferior then any normal person. Gay people, just like any other persons, are genetically equal, superior, and or inferior given the population in the same way as everyone else in this world is in relation to each other. In other words, there is no "gay impairment". But that's besides the point and not even relevant to this discussion.
And no, if you believe the bible and God created all things, then you will know that God stopped and gave people "Free Will" in which they make their own choices. Plus, if you are also going to push the bible, then you have to accept the works of Satan and demonic influences in which God allows. So that logic is just as broke as pretending to know what God likes or dislikes.
That's my point on claiming to speak for God in what he hates. Unless he specifically says it, then it little more then someone's imagination or assumption base on very little information. The bible says very little about homosexuality other then not screwing the same sex or dressing like the opposite sex. And in some of that, it's not pretending to be God's spoken word, it's someone's law who is ruling over God's people. IT may be an anointed leader, but it's not God saying some of it.
Well, yea until the news headlines is "Armed robber evades police chopper by employing military technology that makes him invisible to the high tech night-vision designed to track suspects in the dark." Followed with a headline, "City counsel is to decide whether to spend 10 billion dollars or not to upgrade the aging state of the art police copters purchased not just 5 years ago" followed by the headline "schools suspend bus service in bid to save money afte the last levee failed.".
Yea, it will be buried until it's politically advantageous to someone.
No, the potential for harm has to be likely. Likely as in probably. With the police providing security, it's not likely one of them will be harmed.
That's fine and all, but can you show where the kids were in real danger and that danger was any more likely then getting hit by a car crossing the street or any other normal activity that society sees as normal? Something being dangerous isn't really enough. You also have to remember that the cops were more or less allowing an adult get what's coming for something they probably didn't agree with. They failed in their expected duties (probably on purpose too). However, a failure in something is an acceptable risk as the expectation of failure isn't there until it becomes obvious, otherwise you could get charged for endangerment for letting your kid walk down the street with his shoe laces untied.
Well, for common folk like us, yes. But for people attempting to remain high profile with politically unfriendly views that have already stood the tests of courts, no. The first thing they would do is probably file a federal lawsuit claiming the CPS action is retaliatory to speech which is automatically a violation of the First amendment. This will tie the CPS's hands considerably, move a federal jurisdiction into it requiring less snarling in the first place and probably get the ACLU on their side as well as several international "human rights" organizations. This quickly turns into a career ender for whoever made the call at the CPS to get involved and whoever supports the call at the CPS.
You can't use the government to abuse someone's free speech rights. It's that simple, attempting to corrupt different laws to do so or punish people for holding unpopular beliefs is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to prevent. Selectively interpreting laws will not come out favorable for anyone attempting to do so because you are entitle to equal protection under the law and are guaranteed not to be prosecuted for a post facto law or after the fact interpretation which would be the same if they are twisting an existing law in order to stop someone's speech.
God said that once you were married, you became one and could never be separated.
Mosses required a couple to get a divorce because their hearts hated each other so much that it would cause them to be damned. This is where the rule allowing divorce which directly contradicts God's will to be established.
Jesus talks about this in Mathew 19 in which he said that except for unfaithfulness, you can't divorce. And if you do for any other reason, then remarrying will be adultery which is also forbidden in the bible.
It's one of those because of man, not because of god's intent. the leaders of the religion allow it because the alternative is worse, but God's view (if you believe his view was expressed in the bible) is that once you are married, you become one and do not separate again. When Jesus talks about becoming a eunuch, he is saying that if you can't remain as one, then don't attempt to become another again, just give up on conjugal duties altogether because you need to remain faithful.
I guess some clarification is needed here. The law actually says it's not a violation is the "owner of a copy" of a copyrighted work loads the program into memory as part of using the program.
I guess the distinction is that if you are not an owner of the copy, then it counts as a copy also. If you are the owner of a copy, then it's expressly not counted. And I need to make sure we are clear that we are talking about a copy of the program, not the copyrights to the program. You're right except that I think the lack of distinction was causing some issues for people.
Yes,
That would count as copying unless the multiple machines were necessary to the activation of the machine (memory or ram disk) or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Or
with respect to machine maintenance in which
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
Who says he made them? Certainly not any bible or religions organization that I know of. God Mad man-mankind and gave them free will. Saying god created Fags is about as rediculous as claiming what he likes or hates.
I guess even a blind squirrel will find a nut every now and then. I agree with this point as it makes perfect sense. However, I'm not sure it's "the Mosaic laws of the old testament" as the covenant of Christianity is premised on the ability to ask forgiveness for our sins and repent as god found that we could never follow his will exactly as outlined with a free will. It's sort of like why divorce is permitted but forbidden, Jesus said god knew we would make mistakes and couldn't follow the rules so he gave us an out that we should avoid taking.
It's not the views you have to respect, it's his ability to have views that you need to respect. You can disagree with anything he says or believes in, you just can't stop him from believing or saying them if he isn't infringing on any of your rights when doing so.
I think you are both saying the same things and semantics are simply getting in the way. Respect can have a dual meaning in the context of the statements as in it can modify what is being said, as well as the right to say it. I believe you both were speaking to the right to say something, not about what was being said.
I used to play a game in school with a couple of classmates in which we purposely set out to obfuscate out points until the very end of the statements while leaning into a vulgar or disrespectful direction then bringing it totally back to innocence. Anyways, we purposely attempted to mix semantics like that to give the wrong impression. I think this happened by accident here but I see the same issues surrounding it.
Your serious side has some fatal flaws. Thorwing a kid out of an airplane with a tarp and some ropes would be reckless endangerment (if not homicide). Having the kid go to school and learn to skydive, getting him certified and letting him practice at sanctioned airports would mitigate the endangerment. So would having police protection.
Think of having the police protection being the difference between making the kid go out and street fight verses enrolling into a martial arts form and then attending and competing in the competitions.
You see, the endangerment isn't about the child being in dangerous situations, it's about the likelihood of being injured from those situations. Otherwise letting kids climb trees would be endangerment. So if the cops are there to keep the peace, then the likelihood of them being harmed from the danger wouldn't be an element and your CPS wouldn't be able to do anything at all without a serious lawsuit that would simply fund their future activities.
My grandmother used to say shit in one hand and wish in the other, then see which one fills up first.
If they sued me, or their surviving reletives tried to, they would get a steaming pile of shit because that's about all I have in my name. Almost everything is either tucked away in a trust of some sort and I'm simply an employee, or it went by-by when the ex figured she could do better with the neighbor's nephew.
Thankfully, my distrust in the government made my breakup less expensive for me. But anyways, attempting to goad someone into violence so they can suit you has got to be one of the absolute dumbest ideas ever. I have my assets hidden but others might not have anything at all except the self respect they just stepped on in order to incite the violence. These people might be better off in jail with a structured learning environment, 3 balanced meals a day, and a comfortable out of the weather place to sleep at night.
I can easily see the judge say, you lose everything you own and have some guy in rags empty his pockets to give Phelp's crew a couple mismatched buttons and 55 cents in change, then proudly jot off into what would be a vacation to him- jail for a couple weeks.
Look up a pineapple and it should give you a hint. Oh yea, your probably going to want to view the revision3 results.
Anyways, if I have access to the wifi, I can easily trick you into connecting to my access and then I'm your encrypted endpoint. WPA2 works, but I moved the middle and end points for a classic attack.
Entirely too long? I had to read your post before I realized that someone attempted a joke. But then it hit me and made it more funny then it otherwise should have been. If you're aging, I'm probably ready to retire.
Until that judge goes to a convention 60 miles from your home and gets shot with a .30-06. And you owning one or even possessing a single round won't mean much because most criminals get rid of the evidence linking them to the crime. If you are on the list, it won't be pleasant.
BTW, it doesn't even have to be a convention, you could be camping or on vacation somewhere secluded and it happens, then you somehow get pointed to, the list shows up, and bamm, you are making jail house love to the Taliban version of Bubba.
Actually, nothing will probably ever happen. But this just illustrates the dangers of both the government keeping lists and making comments on public message boards. It's like getting pissed at some crack head and saying you are going to kill him if he doesn't leave you alone then the cops want to talk to you when he attempts to rob his dealer and gets killed in an alley not to far from where you argued with him. I know you know what I'm talking about, just about every Cop Drama where someone is investigating a murder on TV or in the movies has someone who becomes a suspect because of the wrong words blurted out in anger. It's how they fill the time so you don't leave the theator with half a tub of popcorn and pissed because you got ripped off or they can sneak in extra commercials while you are yelling how stupid they are for ignoring the obvious killer and going after some dork who was just angry. Except in this case, you won't have the benefit of someone explaining the context of the comment, just a list with the words. And in the real world, cops are extremely lazy, the stop searching for the truth once they can wrangle something in their heads. (and yes, that's from personal experience)