As you see it maybe. But as the government sees it, it doesn't violate the constitution and it is legal which is why even after popular protest, they continue doing it.
But if you look at those sections of law, you will see that 241 that you actually have to conspire to- conspire actually means intend in this sense because two or more people are attempting to work out how to do whatever the law says is a violation. But if congress which is barred from passing unconstitutional laws passes a law making it legal, then it really isn't conspiring to violate someone's rights even if the eventual outcome is a violation of the constitution. The same applies for section 242 where you need to prove willfully violated the constitution. Following existing law likely would excuse the violation as not willfully intending to violate the constitution.
And don't get bogged down by color of law. It doesn't mean that if someone is following a law that turns out to be unconstitutional they are in violation. Its more like the cop arrests you for driving while black to teach you not to drive on this side of town again. It's more like when that cop is pressured to justify his actions, he invents something like a broken taillight which is why it was necessary to arrest you.
I wonder how you would react if someone detain the U.S. president and storm the Air Force one with dogs and machine guns in search for someone.
I would probably demand we bomb them to hell and back. But I'm not from Ecuador.
Snowden would have had none of that happen if he didn't jump in front of a camera and proclaim he was the source. Guess what, when people go on TV and claim they are bank robbers, expect crap to get difficult for them to travel. Snowden decided to go to China, then fly to Russia and possibly eventually to Ecuador. His passport was canceled before he left China but the trip to Russia was just so important that he had to go. However long he intended to stay is besides the point, he had to go.
Whoever said the constitution was "not" law? I said violations of it was not a felony unless a law makes it so. Being the highest set of laws doesn't matter when the constitution gives only congress the ability to define felonies.
I mean, after all, he didn't slip our enemies our secrets under cover or for profit, he threw them to the public and to the media and then sought asylum. It isn't like he is living like an aristocrat in Russia.
No, he provided a small amount to the public. Then went to China to come out of the closet and claim it was him. From there, he went to Russia and got temporary asylum before more information that he took was disclosed. Now the bulk of the rest of the information- and amount we will never know and if the government even has a clue to how much, they are sitting quiet claiming they are clueless too, is sitting with some journalist from the UK who is attempting to profit off of it.
What he did was illegal, but I can't say that it was wrong.
All I said was that China and Russia call him a patriot and asked if you could be a patriot for more than one country.
First, a court cannot exactly enforce any decision ruling or anything else. That gets passed on to the executive so I'm not going to argue the futility you expressed as it is more than appropriate. We saw this first hand several times in history- one of which was when FDR's new deal legislation was declared unconstitutional and FDR basically said "so what" forcing the court to expand the interstate commerce clause into the monster it is today in order to avoid a constitutional meltdown.
But even if a government official can lie in court, it doesn't mean they will win when it is known they are lieing. As for a pardon, yes, a president can pardon anyone for any violation of any law. It would stop the court proceeding but a pardon implies guilt with no consequences or at minimum the equivalence of no contest without the ability to punish the person. That provides sort of a quirky area where the court can still rule on the case but not impose punishment. Or in other words, a pardon on a person would not prevent the court from saying the program must stop because it is unconstitutional. The pardon does not remove a court order declaring the program unconstitutional and ordering it shut down as matter of fact within the case. At that point, it will be up to the electorate if they want to keep someone in office who violates the law and constitution or not. I suspect that the answer will be no and they will demand congress impeach the president or vote overwhelmingly for any person of another party who pledges to end the program.
As for showing cause, you are correct, and if a law existed that did not allow the NSA to collect the crap that we all know violates the constitution, cause could be shown. In fact, cause was shown before and a case was advancing which is why congress passed a law allowing the collection and implemented the retroactive immunity for the telecoms. I think it was Hepting v. AT&T another seems to be advancing on what was learned from that case and NSA whistle blowers but is directed at the government itself which doesn't have the immunity.
They wouldn't be committing felonies as that would require a violation of law rather than violations of constitutional restrictions against government. The law, constitutional or not, allows the NSA to do what they are doing else a lowly court could shut it all down by a simple low level prosecutor bringing charges to a grand jury. Once it is in the grand jury's hands, the government cannot order the prosecutor to stop anything and it is almost impossible for the administration to stop as the judicial branch is separate. Congress would have to pass a law barring the judicial branch from taking the case up or proceeding with the case which would only work if a court didn't find constitutional issues with the case before it was passed.
Do not construe this comment to be in support of the NSA, just reality as it is presented to us today.
You obviously weren't around for Carter or capable of reading about history.
Nixon was better than Carter- even on liberal policies implemented ffs. And I think we can all agree that both shrubs and the actor was better than Nixon.
Is that because you are the instructor? I jest.. seriously I was joking because it was wide open with the wording you used.
However, you are probably 100% correct. I did the networking and IT for a local county government for a number of years in the past. It was unbelievable that you could give instructions and before the day was out, have them completely ignored by people who thought they knew better.
For instance, we had a server in another location connected to the main building by T1. The T1 line was scheduled to go down due to something in the nightly backups causing it to disconnect. It didn't actually disconnect but something threw a switch on one of the line cards that caused it to go into a monitor mode which halted communications. Taking it offline was to monitor what was actually being sent when it happened and check the commands the backup process was using to see exactly what and where it was happening with Ethereal (yes before it became wireshark). From the telecom point of view, when they tapped in to monitor the status of the link, it started working. Turns out, a flaky line card started interpreting traffic as commands after it was in constant use for a certain amount of time and it went into this monitor mode sort of by default after if was issues invalid commands enough to fill the buffer.
Well, long story short, both offices used servers in each other office so we told them they would not be accessible, what drives they couldn't save to instead, and so on. One office got their entire internet through the T1 from the other office. Not more than 30 minutes after the meeting and informing everyone and 10 minutes after taking the T1 off line, I started getting calls that things were blowing up all over both offices. Stopping what I was doing to check it out, it was all shit that they couldn't access on the other servers that we just told them they couldn't access. One of the more persistent calls was about not having internet access after just being told they would lose internet access for about an hour. We had to run our tests twice because someone in the other building decided to unplug and "reset" the Adtran DSU/CSU unit because it works when their internet at home goes out (someone thought it was a cable modem or something).
Granted these were county employees. But I do not expect it to be much different with any other government entity. Nice people, but their day was pretty much drone work and they couldn't seem to deviate even after being told they would have to. It would have been nice if the county would have approved the overtime to do this after hours but for some reason it was cheaper to pay an entire workforce to do nothing for a few hours than a few telecom employees and one IT contract employee overtime.
Of course artificially inflating the costs of energy makes companies and employees more efficient. That is because they have to compete with outside sources who are not burdened with the artificial costs or risk going under.
If everyone in the word was subject to the exact same costs increases, it would only become inflation and the world would move on just the same. Instead when only part of the world has to deal with increased costs, they have options to consider, either becoming more efficient, paying less for labor, materials, or whatever else is a cost, or escaping the costs increases altogether by moving to an area without the increased costs (offshoring). Presumably, the last option is a last resort because leadership of these companies will not want to move.
Is it any wonder that EU countries have more than tripled their imports from China within the last 10 years? In the last 20 years, trade with China and the EU countries went from almost nothing to over 428 billion a year in 2013. Of that 428 billion, only 148 billion is exported from EU countries while 279 billion was imported into them.
But keep on increasing costs, China and India and all the other countries like the concept.
In a capitalist society, any corporation or person can decide to cater to those markets whether the countries demand it or not.
In fact, that is likely what will happen. US companies, or multinationals will enter those markets in Europe because they artificially exist and end up selling some products in the US because people- although in small numbers- want them. This will eventually end up creating a market in the US where more and more people want them through natural demand.
That doesn't really say what it says.. Well, it does but it is wrong.
You see, it starts off in 1990. Germany was divided into 2 separate countries at that time. According to the EIA, ****IF the right selections do not appear, it is simple to make the selections on their tool and see the values by changing the dates and selecting the countries.
Anyways, in 1988, east and west Germany combined to a total of 1009.618 million metric tons of Co2 emissions from energy use, in 1989, that went to 988.247 million metric tons. In 1990, it went to 981.634 where in 1991, it went to 928.950 million metric tons. That's almost a 81 million metric ton drop from combining east and west Germany into one state unit. In contrast, from 1991 until 2012, a little less then double that has been reduced or 141 million metric tons- give or take. So it took 3 years to drop half of what it took 21 years to reduce (while only 8 of those years being after the first Kyoto treaty in 1997 that went in effect in 2015) when East and West Germany became simply Germany.
What am I trying to say with all this? Well let me get to the point. When Germany was two separate states, either records were flawed, estimated and inaccurate because they were absent, or purposely manipulated (espionage, cold war and such) that inflated numbers were recorded until the two countries combined. And while you would think that the numbers would rise as East Germans began having the abilities to upgrade their lifestyles and do more once the two countries became one again, but they fell even more- before the Kyoto protocol even was signed. Some of this may be shuttering inefficient generation plants that more efficient ones could make up for once the two countries power grids were connected, but the numbers in the early to mid 1990s were likely too high to match reality.
I support internet fast lanes "if" they can be implemented without slowing any other connection speeds down to below what the customer actually pays for. I also support QOS prioritization of VoIP traffic.
I also think net neutrality can be realized today by enforcement of existing laws and rules. When an ISP sells you service advertised at 10 megs or up to 10 megs, if they purposely and intentionally slow any part of it below that 10 megs, they are not delivering the goods sold to the consumer. And no, up to is not a cop out because the up to number will never be above what they limit. That means if they limit a connection to 1 meg, regardless of what they sold you, they are delivering goods of up to 1 meg. But if they sell a 4 meg connection and Youtube wants to stream at 10 megs, I have no problem with them paying to do so as long as it doesn't slow anyone else speeds to below what they purchased.
Also, many of these ISPs get money from the governments to roll out broadband or service areas not profitable to them. Well, if they limit their service or any parts of the service to below 4 megs, it is technically not broadband and they would be in default. Also, if they manipulate packets in ways like with the bit torrent in which they injected packets to cause the connection to reset, wouldn't that be a copyright violation as well as under the fraud abuse laws? For instance, Ohio law considers it bait advertising to " Delivering offered goods or services which are unusable or impractical for the purposes represented or materially different from the offered goods or services. ".
But more than all, I think the way the FCC is trying to create and or change law by wrangling reinterpretations and classifications without any intervention of congress (elected officials) is dangerous to freedom and directly contradictory to democracy. This should be true whether you support it or not. Get it done right and get congress or even your local state governments to pass the laws. Even at the state level, the state can extend it's jurisdiction to actions by the same company in other states so if Verizon in Indian is barred from restricting packets based on payments from any third party, Verizon in California doing so for traffic originating from or destined for Indiana would put them in violation and under jurisdiction.
Looks like someone likes the troll mod.. That's critical thinking for ya, squash answers to questions asked- the mod must be a product of outcome based education.
We shouldn't challenge student's fixed beliefs? Or undermine parental authority? Those sound like usual and desired outcomes of critical thinking skills.
Yes, because the last thing we want is the child to possibly believe there is or may be a god, or that sharing is good, stealing is bad, murder is bad and you will be locked up for life unless you live in a state that will kill you too, that you should look both ways before crossing a street, cussing and swearing around people you do not know is impolite and still rude with ones you do know, or anything else parents instill as fixed beliefs with their authority. Well, that unless the child comes to those conclusions on their own through trial and error or whatever process he/she may choose to develop an understanding of them.
Yes, that sounds like a great thing.
And I'll admit that "focus on behavior modification" sounds like a code phrase. You seem to like this statement; could you translate it into language that I can understand?
Politifact has a writeup on it that explains it. Some of the links are dead though but it drops the meat right in the analysis.
From this write up
Opponents said the outcome-based approach was antithetical to critical thinking. They claimed it "dumbed down" curricula and influenced students to adopt liberal attitudes because the "outcome" of their studies was predetermined by academia.
In case you did not know, most conservatives think academia is fraught with liberals pushing their agenda which is why you can get Mumia Abu-Jamal speaking at a commencement ceremony and Condoleezza Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, protested to the point they withdrew from speaking. The lists goes on.
Part of this is from The Naked Communist (1958) and School of Darkness by Bella V. Dodd but more recent claims have been made
You don't have to believe those claims, but you should believe that other do. That is what is meant by behavior modification as stated.
Nope, my theory is that the internet was indeed created for porn.
The integrated part was only to clarify that the bunk mate was not a woman. I also shouldn't have to remind you that don't ask don't tell came after arpanet, the internet, and openly serving gays happens only recently.
Bull.. The internet was specifically designed to get Asian porn on US shores and US bases as quickly as possible. People think it was about national security with arpanet but it was really about cold war soldiers needing something to look at besides their bunkmate. And this was before women were "integrated" in the military.
There has been what- 8 people associated with abprtion clinics who have been killed for that asdociation? I have found no indication that any church or church leadership was behind it or endorsed it or encouraged it either.
The Klan never was a church either. Of course christians made up the KKK and they attempted to use the bible yo justify their hatred but i do not exactly think it is the same.
Westboro is interesting though. As vile and insane as they were, they never advocated violence.
I think you missed an operative statement the parent made. "And try to kill in the name of". While the KKK might fit in there, or maybe at one time they would have, its only the idiots who try to kill in the name of that could be comparable.
So this excludes westboro. Would include a number of but not all klansmen, and about five anti abortionist in the US. I think you missed the limiter he put there "kill in the name off".
It should be no different than any other evidence of a crime. If your car was stolen and used to rob a bank- or they just think it was-, similar circumstances would happen.
However, with the cash and asset forfieture it is a little backwards where the only evidence of any crime is the fact that it is in your posession and few times are there any charges filed at all.
But nontheless., there is a legal process no matter how horrid or abstract it may be. This does make it different than a law enforcement officer stealing identities and trying to impersonate people in order to ensnare people they otherwise would have no clue existed.
Oh.. and you do not have to convince me about how evil asset seizure is. I'm just saying at least there is a process.
They most certainly did vote to change the rules in the recent past. No one but you in this thread is denying that and we are actually discussing the fact it may have been limited to hudicial nominies and can just as easily be done again to seat a Surgeon General. My claim is the reason it has not happened is because even if they did, not enough democrats would vote for him to pass.
You mean except when they did it about a year ago to get around needing a super majority?
If it wasn't just done, your point would have more weight. But then i would point out that the position is not unmaned, there is an acting S.G. in place and has been ever since the post became vacant. Its just not a political shill doing the job right now.
Lol. Its not like the republicans can't just change it when they have control of the senate.
I find it interesting how strongly some people are willing to ignore reality in order to create and maintain a republican boogerman. Lets forget that the current thread topic is a lie and its a democrat problem getting the surgeon general nomination through and invent a distraction instead. Wow how simply stupid people become when ideology it at risk.
Either way, with a simple majority vote, they could change that too. Thats all they had to change the rules last time even if it was limited to judicial nominies.
Oh, and slate isn't exactly a conservative site last time i checked. But i see they are trying to be less liberal so go figure.
Awe.. isn't that sweet. You are mad because i shot down your conspiracy with simply facts that anyone paying attention over the last year would already know.
I'm sorry you hate me now but i still love you.
Btw, [sic] the way you used it doesn't mean what you think it means and more than likely neither does dumass. But hey, those are just facts too.
Slashdot Mirror
As you see it maybe. But as the government sees it, it doesn't violate the constitution and it is legal which is why even after popular protest, they continue doing it.
But if you look at those sections of law, you will see that 241 that you actually have to conspire to- conspire actually means intend in this sense because two or more people are attempting to work out how to do whatever the law says is a violation. But if congress which is barred from passing unconstitutional laws passes a law making it legal, then it really isn't conspiring to violate someone's rights even if the eventual outcome is a violation of the constitution. The same applies for section 242 where you need to prove willfully violated the constitution. Following existing law likely would excuse the violation as not willfully intending to violate the constitution.
And don't get bogged down by color of law. It doesn't mean that if someone is following a law that turns out to be unconstitutional they are in violation. Its more like the cop arrests you for driving while black to teach you not to drive on this side of town again. It's more like when that cop is pressured to justify his actions, he invents something like a broken taillight which is why it was necessary to arrest you.
I would probably demand we bomb them to hell and back. But I'm not from Ecuador.
Snowden would have had none of that happen if he didn't jump in front of a camera and proclaim he was the source. Guess what, when people go on TV and claim they are bank robbers, expect crap to get difficult for them to travel. Snowden decided to go to China, then fly to Russia and possibly eventually to Ecuador. His passport was canceled before he left China but the trip to Russia was just so important that he had to go. However long he intended to stay is besides the point, he had to go.
Whoever said the constitution was "not" law? I said violations of it was not a felony unless a law makes it so. Being the highest set of laws doesn't matter when the constitution gives only congress the ability to define felonies.
lol.. You have some silly beliefs here.
No, he provided a small amount to the public. Then went to China to come out of the closet and claim it was him. From there, he went to Russia and got temporary asylum before more information that he took was disclosed. Now the bulk of the rest of the information- and amount we will never know and if the government even has a clue to how much, they are sitting quiet claiming they are clueless too, is sitting with some journalist from the UK who is attempting to profit off of it.
All I said was that China and Russia call him a patriot and asked if you could be a patriot for more than one country.
First, a court cannot exactly enforce any decision ruling or anything else. That gets passed on to the executive so I'm not going to argue the futility you expressed as it is more than appropriate. We saw this first hand several times in history- one of which was when FDR's new deal legislation was declared unconstitutional and FDR basically said "so what" forcing the court to expand the interstate commerce clause into the monster it is today in order to avoid a constitutional meltdown.
But even if a government official can lie in court, it doesn't mean they will win when it is known they are lieing. As for a pardon, yes, a president can pardon anyone for any violation of any law. It would stop the court proceeding but a pardon implies guilt with no consequences or at minimum the equivalence of no contest without the ability to punish the person. That provides sort of a quirky area where the court can still rule on the case but not impose punishment. Or in other words, a pardon on a person would not prevent the court from saying the program must stop because it is unconstitutional. The pardon does not remove a court order declaring the program unconstitutional and ordering it shut down as matter of fact within the case. At that point, it will be up to the electorate if they want to keep someone in office who violates the law and constitution or not. I suspect that the answer will be no and they will demand congress impeach the president or vote overwhelmingly for any person of another party who pledges to end the program.
As for showing cause, you are correct, and if a law existed that did not allow the NSA to collect the crap that we all know violates the constitution, cause could be shown. In fact, cause was shown before and a case was advancing which is why congress passed a law allowing the collection and implemented the retroactive immunity for the telecoms. I think it was Hepting v. AT&T another seems to be advancing on what was learned from that case and NSA whistle blowers but is directed at the government itself which doesn't have the immunity.
Russia thinks so. China does too.
Can you be a patriot to more than one country?
They wouldn't be committing felonies as that would require a violation of law rather than violations of constitutional restrictions against government. The law, constitutional or not, allows the NSA to do what they are doing else a lowly court could shut it all down by a simple low level prosecutor bringing charges to a grand jury. Once it is in the grand jury's hands, the government cannot order the prosecutor to stop anything and it is almost impossible for the administration to stop as the judicial branch is separate. Congress would have to pass a law barring the judicial branch from taking the case up or proceeding with the case which would only work if a court didn't find constitutional issues with the case before it was passed.
Do not construe this comment to be in support of the NSA, just reality as it is presented to us today.
You obviously weren't around for Carter or capable of reading about history.
Nixon was better than Carter- even on liberal policies implemented ffs. And I think we can all agree that both shrubs and the actor was better than Nixon.
Is that because you are the instructor? I jest.. seriously I was joking because it was wide open with the wording you used.
However, you are probably 100% correct. I did the networking and IT for a local county government for a number of years in the past. It was unbelievable that you could give instructions and before the day was out, have them completely ignored by people who thought they knew better.
For instance, we had a server in another location connected to the main building by T1. The T1 line was scheduled to go down due to something in the nightly backups causing it to disconnect. It didn't actually disconnect but something threw a switch on one of the line cards that caused it to go into a monitor mode which halted communications. Taking it offline was to monitor what was actually being sent when it happened and check the commands the backup process was using to see exactly what and where it was happening with Ethereal (yes before it became wireshark). From the telecom point of view, when they tapped in to monitor the status of the link, it started working. Turns out, a flaky line card started interpreting traffic as commands after it was in constant use for a certain amount of time and it went into this monitor mode sort of by default after if was issues invalid commands enough to fill the buffer.
Well, long story short, both offices used servers in each other office so we told them they would not be accessible, what drives they couldn't save to instead, and so on. One office got their entire internet through the T1 from the other office. Not more than 30 minutes after the meeting and informing everyone and 10 minutes after taking the T1 off line, I started getting calls that things were blowing up all over both offices. Stopping what I was doing to check it out, it was all shit that they couldn't access on the other servers that we just told them they couldn't access. One of the more persistent calls was about not having internet access after just being told they would lose internet access for about an hour. We had to run our tests twice because someone in the other building decided to unplug and "reset" the Adtran DSU/CSU unit because it works when their internet at home goes out (someone thought it was a cable modem or something).
Granted these were county employees. But I do not expect it to be much different with any other government entity. Nice people, but their day was pretty much drone work and they couldn't seem to deviate even after being told they would have to. It would have been nice if the county would have approved the overtime to do this after hours but for some reason it was cheaper to pay an entire workforce to do nothing for a few hours than a few telecom employees and one IT contract employee overtime.
Of course artificially inflating the costs of energy makes companies and employees more efficient. That is because they have to compete with outside sources who are not burdened with the artificial costs or risk going under.
If everyone in the word was subject to the exact same costs increases, it would only become inflation and the world would move on just the same. Instead when only part of the world has to deal with increased costs, they have options to consider, either becoming more efficient, paying less for labor, materials, or whatever else is a cost, or escaping the costs increases altogether by moving to an area without the increased costs (offshoring). Presumably, the last option is a last resort because leadership of these companies will not want to move.
Is it any wonder that EU countries have more than tripled their imports from China within the last 10 years? In the last 20 years, trade with China and the EU countries went from almost nothing to over 428 billion a year in 2013. Of that 428 billion, only 148 billion is exported from EU countries while 279 billion was imported into them.
But keep on increasing costs, China and India and all the other countries like the concept.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/docl...
That's a market thing not a country thing.
In a capitalist society, any corporation or person can decide to cater to those markets whether the countries demand it or not.
In fact, that is likely what will happen. US companies, or multinationals will enter those markets in Europe because they artificially exist and end up selling some products in the US because people- although in small numbers- want them. This will eventually end up creating a market in the US where more and more people want them through natural demand.
That doesn't really say what it says.. Well, it does but it is wrong.
You see, it starts off in 1990. Germany was divided into 2 separate countries at that time. According to the EIA, ****IF the right selections do not appear, it is simple to make the selections on their tool and see the values by changing the dates and selecting the countries.
Anyways, in 1988, east and west Germany combined to a total of 1009.618 million metric tons of Co2 emissions from energy use, in 1989, that went to 988.247 million metric tons. In 1990, it went to 981.634 where in 1991, it went to 928.950 million metric tons. That's almost a 81 million metric ton drop from combining east and west Germany into one state unit. In contrast, from 1991 until 2012, a little less then double that has been reduced or 141 million metric tons- give or take. So it took 3 years to drop half of what it took 21 years to reduce (while only 8 of those years being after the first Kyoto treaty in 1997 that went in effect in 2015) when East and West Germany became simply Germany.
What am I trying to say with all this? Well let me get to the point. When Germany was two separate states, either records were flawed, estimated and inaccurate because they were absent, or purposely manipulated (espionage, cold war and such) that inflated numbers were recorded until the two countries combined. And while you would think that the numbers would rise as East Germans began having the abilities to upgrade their lifestyles and do more once the two countries became one again, but they fell even more- before the Kyoto protocol even was signed. Some of this may be shuttering inefficient generation plants that more efficient ones could make up for once the two countries power grids were connected, but the numbers in the early to mid 1990s were likely too high to match reality.
Hi, meet me.
I support internet fast lanes "if" they can be implemented without slowing any other connection speeds down to below what the customer actually pays for. I also support QOS prioritization of VoIP traffic.
I also think net neutrality can be realized today by enforcement of existing laws and rules. When an ISP sells you service advertised at 10 megs or up to 10 megs, if they purposely and intentionally slow any part of it below that 10 megs, they are not delivering the goods sold to the consumer. And no, up to is not a cop out because the up to number will never be above what they limit. That means if they limit a connection to 1 meg, regardless of what they sold you, they are delivering goods of up to 1 meg. But if they sell a 4 meg connection and Youtube wants to stream at 10 megs, I have no problem with them paying to do so as long as it doesn't slow anyone else speeds to below what they purchased.
Also, many of these ISPs get money from the governments to roll out broadband or service areas not profitable to them. Well, if they limit their service or any parts of the service to below 4 megs, it is technically not broadband and they would be in default. Also, if they manipulate packets in ways like with the bit torrent in which they injected packets to cause the connection to reset, wouldn't that be a copyright violation as well as under the fraud abuse laws? For instance, Ohio law considers it bait advertising to " Delivering offered goods or services which are unusable or impractical for the purposes represented or materially different from the offered goods or services. ".
But more than all, I think the way the FCC is trying to create and or change law by wrangling reinterpretations and classifications without any intervention of congress (elected officials) is dangerous to freedom and directly contradictory to democracy. This should be true whether you support it or not. Get it done right and get congress or even your local state governments to pass the laws. Even at the state level, the state can extend it's jurisdiction to actions by the same company in other states so if Verizon in Indian is barred from restricting packets based on payments from any third party, Verizon in California doing so for traffic originating from or destined for Indiana would put them in violation and under jurisdiction.
Looks like someone likes the troll mod.. That's critical thinking for ya, squash answers to questions asked- the mod must be a product of outcome based education.
Yes, because the last thing we want is the child to possibly believe there is or may be a god, or that sharing is good, stealing is bad, murder is bad and you will be locked up for life unless you live in a state that will kill you too, that you should look both ways before crossing a street, cussing and swearing around people you do not know is impolite and still rude with ones you do know, or anything else parents instill as fixed beliefs with their authority. Well, that unless the child comes to those conclusions on their own through trial and error or whatever process he/she may choose to develop an understanding of them.
Yes, that sounds like a great thing.
Politifact has a writeup on it that explains it. Some of the links are dead though but it drops the meat right in the analysis.
From this write up
In case you did not know, most conservatives think academia is fraught with liberals pushing their agenda which is why you can get Mumia Abu-Jamal speaking at a commencement ceremony and Condoleezza Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, protested to the point they withdrew from speaking. The lists goes on.
Part of this is from The Naked Communist (1958) and School of Darkness by Bella V. Dodd but more recent claims have been made
You don't have to believe those claims, but you should believe that other do. That is what is meant by behavior modification as stated.
Nope, my theory is that the internet was indeed created for porn.
The integrated part was only to clarify that the bunk mate was not a woman. I also shouldn't have to remind you that don't ask don't tell came after arpanet, the internet, and openly serving gays happens only recently.
Bull.. The internet was specifically designed to get Asian porn on US shores and US bases as quickly as possible. People think it was about national security with arpanet but it was really about cold war soldiers needing something to look at besides their bunkmate. And this was before women were "integrated" in the military.
There has been what- 8 people associated with abprtion clinics who have been killed for that asdociation? I have found no indication that any church or church leadership was behind it or endorsed it or encouraged it either.
The Klan never was a church either. Of course christians made up the KKK and they attempted to use the bible yo justify their hatred but i do not exactly think it is the same.
Westboro is interesting though. As vile and insane as they were, they never advocated violence.
I think you missed an operative statement the parent made. "And try to kill in the name of". While the KKK might fit in there, or maybe at one time they would have, its only the idiots who try to kill in the name of that could be comparable.
So this excludes westboro. Would include a number of but not all klansmen, and about five anti abortionist in the US. I think you missed the limiter he put there "kill in the name off".
Yes it is sort of
It should be no different than any other evidence of a crime. If your car was stolen and used to rob a bank- or they just think it was-, similar circumstances would happen.
However, with the cash and asset forfieture it is a little backwards where the only evidence of any crime is the fact that it is in your posession and few times are there any charges filed at all.
But nontheless., there is a legal process no matter how horrid or abstract it may be. This does make it different than a law enforcement officer stealing identities and trying to impersonate people in order to ensnare people they otherwise would have no clue existed.
Oh.. and you do not have to convince me about how evil asset seizure is. I'm just saying at least there is a process.
They most certainly did vote to change the rules in the recent past. No one but you in this thread is denying that and we are actually discussing the fact it may have been limited to hudicial nominies and can just as easily be done again to seat a Surgeon General. My claim is the reason it has not happened is because even if they did, not enough democrats would vote for him to pass.
You mean except when they did it about a year ago to get around needing a super majority?
If it wasn't just done, your point would have more weight. But then i would point out that the position is not unmaned, there is an acting S.G. in place and has been ever since the post became vacant. Its just not a political shill doing the job right now.
Lol. Its not like the republicans can't just change it when they have control of the senate.
I find it interesting how strongly some people are willing to ignore reality in order to create and maintain a republican boogerman. Lets forget that the current thread topic is a lie and its a democrat problem getting the surgeon general nomination through and invent a distraction instead. Wow how simply stupid people become when ideology it at risk.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Either way, with a simple majority vote, they could change that too. Thats all they had to change the rules last time even if it was limited to judicial nominies.
Oh, and slate isn't exactly a conservative site last time i checked. But i see they are trying to be less liberal so go figure.
Awe.. isn't that sweet. You are mad because i shot down your conspiracy with simply facts that anyone paying attention over the last year would already know.
I'm sorry you hate me now but i still love you.
Btw, [sic] the way you used it doesn't mean what you think it means and more than likely neither does dumass. But hey, those are just facts too.
Interesting, the truth is overrated.