You haven't explained why you feel the Supreme Court is wrong.
I feel the Supreme court is wrong because they ignored the first amendment.
The government clearly has the right to regulate the broadcasts of these companies, as they are engaged in interstate commerce.
Few radio station broadcasts cross state lines. Even so, regulating so that each station doens't try to overpower its competitors by boosting power is quite different then saying what content is allowed over the band.
You claim this regulation violates the First Amendment, but you haven't explained why.
I didn't think that it wasn't clear how censorship violates the first amendment. People have the right to speech, it doesn't matter if the listeners find what was said offensive or in bad taste.
Use of the public airwaves is a privilege, not a right.
Really? I didn't see any right granted to the feds or the states in the constition about the use of airwaves. Therefore, it falls to the people.
Complaining certainly is within your First Amendment rights.
I agree; its when those complaints are then used to justify censorship is where I have a problem.
One is a prior restraint, the other isn't.
Is the net result not the same for both?
I think you're taking two different comments out of context. FCC fines are similar to speed limits, in that they are a regulation over use of a public good. They do restrict speech, I suppose, but they don't violate the First Amendment.
Would you care to elaborate how you can restrict speech without violating the first amendment?
I don't care about whether or not I hear the speech.
Then why do you care what they are broadcasting? Oh, you don't want anyone else to hear it either..i see.
Then the public at large has a right to determine what is done with them.
And most of the public is fine with Stern, or what happened at the 2004 superbowl half time.
Yes it does. It's called interference.
No, it doesn't. Broadcasting Christain rock or howard stern still 'interferes' the same way. However you only want to elimate the interference when the latter is being broadcast.
Not frequencies which propagate well for certain types of purposes. And all of those frequencies are equally regulated anyway. The only one you can use for pretty much anything is MURS, and that is a very narrow band.
Then are you in favor of eliminating all FM band broadcasts? Or just the ones you don't like when you listen to them? If your issue is the bands then you have another gripe that has nothing to do with content.
Of course it matters. If it didn't matter, then broadcasters would have no problems broadcasting what the government wants them to broadcast.
So you're saying then that it is ok for the gov't to censor and violate the first amendment?
If someone else is using that band for something that benefits the public, then I'm OK with not using the band myself.
Do you fail to see that maybe other people disagree and feel that the stations are ALREADY using the band for public benefit?
Clearly I disagree.
Ahh, i see you can't hand anything that is outside your narrow view of the world. If you disagree, you want to block it. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in China, where the gov't does control broadcasts?
The licensing fees for those bands are actually more than those for FM radio.
So get the fees changed. Funny how i've setup point to point wireless internet without paying a cent for the spectrum.
My argument is that the radio broadcasters have taken a public resource away from the public by promising to use it for the public good and then they complain whenever the FCC tries to enforce that promise. They can't have it both ways. Either auction off the bands to the highest bidders and let them do whatever they want with them (i.e., the end of free radio), keep things the way they are now (i.e. government regulation), or just leave it as a big free-for-all where whoever can yell the loudest wins (i.e. tragedy of the commons).
YOU are saying that you don't believe its in the public good, others disagree. Why do you want to bend everyone to use only your definition of 'public good?'
I myself am a Howard Stern fan, as I've said above. That's not what this is about. This is about corporations stealing things from the public with lies.
What exactly then is the public good the radio stations are supposed to be serving if not to broadcast content? Obviously people feel the stations are serving a public intrest, or wouldn't be listening, at which point the stations would go under and the FM band would be open for others to license. What exactly are the 'lies' you're talking about? Did they promise 'clean wholesome fun for the family?'
At least it will cause them to lose their license so that a company that is working in my best interests can get it.
You should just admit that your problem is free thinking,and you hate the others don't have offensive the same content that you do. You want to control what they see and hear.
Um, the 'social control' you lament about in your last sentence is actually compelling others to leave you alone, not to do as you want them to.
Just like everything else, there are two sides. You CAN you force to oppress, but you can also use it to keep yourself free. I bet anyone who's been mugged had wish they had a gun on them.
I *do* think it's a good idea to check IDs at airports - this is because it makes it a little bit more difficult for terrorists to blow up aeroplanes.
All of the hijackers had valid, current IDs. What exactly would have been stopped?
I think the biggest danger that this thread brings up is the dangerous uniformity of opinion and fear that the state is out to get you...
Every gov't known to man has abused its powers. Why do you think ours is any different? The US was founded on the idea that the gov't shouldn't really have much power at all...because it can't abuse what it doesn't have.
So..you internal with the right to be able to travel with out some sort of 'internal passport' but you agree with having to produce some sort of 'internal passport' to drive?
How exactly is your statement logical?
I don't buy your reasoning that to get a license is a test of 'worthiness.' Why the hell are blind 80 yr olds with diabetes allowed to drive then?
Oh, well I see now how wrong I am. Good thing you were here to point that out to me.
You could have tried to explain why you feel the supreme court is right in their decision to allow censorship, but you just keep going with the 'I'm right you're wrong' argument.
Use of the public airwaves is a privilege, not a right.
Use of public property (which, by definition, everyone owns) is a privlege? Tell me, how does use of something that I am supposed to own only a privledge, especially when I'm using it to exercise one of my rights?
You don't need to sign every contract with a pen. People sign the FAFSA all the time without ever touching a mouse, and verbal contracts are also seen as legally binding in many places.
No, but you DO need to do more then open a box or make some pretty pictures appear on a screen.
Another poster pointed out the problems with your arguements, so I won't say anything else.
Lastly, to 'sign' FASFA requires more then just clicking I agree. Just like signing your federal income tax for an e-file...you must provide information only you should know. Simply clicking 'OK' isn't good enough.
Oh, and just because some webpage says something is true, doesn't mean it is. Try not to take web-pedia's definition as legal advice.
I see, so any small special intrest group or large mob gets to decide by complaining endlessly to the FCC. Why is it that setting strict guidelines violates the First amendment, but knowing that you could possibly be fined if you cross some aribtrary lines isn't considered a restriction? Many people have compared FCC fines to speed limits, but then turn around and say FCC fines dont restrict speech, even though thats the purpose of fining for speeding.
How does not listening to a station make up for the fact that these people are using my airwaves?
You don't hear the speech over the airwaves that you don't want to hear. Oh, and they aren't your airwaves. If they belong to anyone they belong to the public at large.
But it does. If you want to use my airwaves, then what I think is appropriate matters.
Since they are my airwaves also, what I think is appropriate matters too. And I think that unrestricted speech over the airwaves is appropriate.
As I've said, not listening to the radio doesn't allow me to use the radio spectrum for other things. The government has given the radio stations exclusive rights to that portion of the radio spectrum. In return they have to promote the public good.
And you're right..my whole point was that the content broadcast over the airwavs doesn't hinder in any way your using them for other purposes. There are other frequencies available. Does it matter if a station plays audio of hardcore sex or the teachings of jesus? Either way, YOU won't be using that band. Your nonsense about the public good is your way of saying 'i want to censor what is on the airwaves.' Censoring never serves the public good.
It does harm me. I can't use the FM spectrum to broadcast my radio station because of them. I can't create a point to point internet link using FM because of them. To say that Clearstation doesn't harm me by broadcasting its crap is nonsense.
Guess what, no matter what Clearchannel broadcasts, you won't be using that band. for some reason though you feel that taking away that band because you don't like the content will open it up for your uses. It won't.
You could use ANOTHER part of the band if you really wanted your own FM station. You have other bands for setting up point to point internet. Use those.
What exactly is your arguement? That you don't like smut on the radio, or you don't like not being able to use the FM band at all? You think that if a station does broadcast smut YOU should get the band b/c YOU don't like it? What about the people that do? Stern is still on because he has ALOT of fans. Get over yourself, if you don't like him don't listen. Either way, it won't transfer thier FM license to you.
Interesting thought process. Fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you. You have the right to speak whatever you want. You don't however have the right to use the public airwaves to promote that speech.
And unfortunalty sometimes the Supreme Court is wrong. I'd think that the airwaves would be a great place to exersice free speech, but I guess there's only room for speech that matches majority opinion.
You have to draw a line somewhere... Where you draw that line is dictated by your morals, not your logic, though sometimes logic is used in an attempt to justify or disprove someone's morals.
Please, explain why you have to draw a line somewhere. Explain why, if you don't want to see those things at 11am why you can't just avoid those channels. There are plenty of ways you can avoid it; v-chip, using tv.yahoo.com to see what programming is on, almost every TV today allows you to 'list' the channels you want to cycle through as you press Up and down. Why do you have to force what you dislike off the air, when there are so many means available to you to avoid it if its there?
You may not like those things, but you shouldn't be trying to force your morals on others. Believe it or not, you can derive morals from logic as well, and my logic says 'leave other people alone.'
People can use anything as their cause and taint that cause, but it doesn't necessarily make that cause a bad thing.
The problem with religon is that forcing people to convert to said religon. Just this morning I had people harrasing me (even after I told them never to return again) to convert on my own property. In Columbus' time, many people were forcably converted in South America and Africa and here in America. This was church policy, not just 'some people.' See also the Inquisition.
What does this have to do with regulating WHAT is said using those airwaves?
We choose to let these broadcasters use the airwaves in exchange for them acting in the public interest. It's not in the public interest to hear curses and fart noises.
And you get to decide that for everyone? Why not let the public decide by letting them choose which stations to listen to. Oh thats right, because you realize a majority of people might consider things offensive to you as entertainment for themselves, and that market forces would drive out christian radio in an instant.
This isn't about free speech. It's about regulation of a finite resource. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I can go into a public library and start yelling out obscenities.
It is about free speech; the fact that spectrum is limited does not justify that only what YOU think is appropriate should be broadcast over that spectrum. You can't choose what you hear in a library. You CAN choose what you hear on the radio. Don't tune into stations you don't like.
The fact is that people like you are facists and want to control what OTHER people are doing even though it causes no harm to you.
I'm a fan of Howard Stern, but at the same time I can understand why we have an FCC. The airwaves are a public resource, and as such they pretty much have to be regulated.
Except inthis case regulation flys directly in the face of the first amendment.
1) It is their store policy, if you do not like it - don't shop there.
Their policy cannot contradict the law; that is, they STILL do NOT have the power to detain me.
2) I could understand if they just selected a specific group of people (i.e. targeting only black people) then it would be a problem - they target everyone
So it would be ok for the police to search everyone driving down a certain street just for driving down the street? Good logic.
3) People do shoplift - on their own and with assistance from store clerks.
Employee theft is a MUCH larger problem then shoplifting; comparitively, the shoplifting is negligible.
4) Criminals can easily appear to be non-criminals (it's not that hard really). So those 20 store clerks you just hired - they seem reasonable - doesn't mean one of them won't steal
And that is the store's problem, not mine or The Vulture's. If employees steal, that doesn't mean they should be searching ME.
It is a naive, and actually from people on this board (which i expect more from) just plain being dickish to give these people a hard time.
Walking out of the store and saying 'no' to the check person is being dickish? Really? And then how dickish is being accused of stealing just b/c i shop there? And lets use your logic; if the check person doesn't like it, they can find some place else to work.
They are not being assholes to you by asking for your receipt - they are trying to protect themselves from being robbed.
How is accusing me of stealing and wanting to search me not being an asswhole? AS i stated before, most theft is done by employees. Maybe they should concentrate on that before accusing me of stealing.
One of your arguments is that if they didn't catch a person shoplifting at the register then their only means of preventing or catching a criminal is a camera? Like camera's do much.
Camera's are highly effective. Thats why casinos use them. If they can catch someone slipping a card in they can certainly catch someone not scanning an item. The fact is they are VERY effective at catching employees actively stealing.
You are being ridiculous. This conversation is a matter of opinion so it will go nowhere. Again, if you do not like a particular stores policy - don't shop there - I am sure you can buy the same or similar products in another store. But being a dick to someone who is doing their job makes you the bad guy - not the rent-a-cop.
Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of law (which you obviously don't understand). 'I'm just doing my job' isn't an excuse, as many war criminals found out.
I ask you to prove yourself and you tell me that I have no clue as to what I am talking. The logic of this goes how?
He doesn't have to prove himself; you're the one making offbase claims. He even told you were to look to find your answers. Stop being lazy, and do some research. I know he has, because my research agrees with his!
1) The law asks for reasonable, and lends reasonable to a broad aspect. Sort of like when a police officer stops someone under the "I had reason to believe...."
And the judge will ask what the circumstances were that lead the cop to believe his actions were reasonable. And if the judge doesn't like his answer, the case gets thrown out.
2)Well duh. Though you have yet to show me the law written anywhere to prove your statement
Maybe b/c he doesn't know what state you live in, and the laws do vary state to state. Why can't YOU go look it up? Or do you want him to so you can just try to discredit his source and you can keep your hands over your ears and your eyes closed.
The rest of your post isn't even worth replying to..you just don't want to hear you're wrong.
You walk out the store with a bag of stuff The store gaurd asks you to show the receipt You refuse The store gaurd thinks "that is weird, why would a person who just bought something refuse to show me their receipt...unless they are shop lifting."
No, its not reasonable, since 99% of the stores out there do NOT do this. This is the old 'if you don't have anything to hide then what are you worried about' arguement.
Maybe you don't care about some uninvolved 3rd party knowing what you bought, and maybe you don't care about being accused of stealing JUST FOR LEAVING THE STORE, but many people do.
Apply the same logic to the police getting a search warrant; 'well he refused to let us search, so he must be hiding something please give us the warrant.' No judge would go for that WITHOUT other evidence. Your line of reasoning leads to the abolishment of even getting a warrant. Refusing to be searched becomes grounds to be searched.
Jesus, do people just do asshole things to be complete dicks for no other reason? No wonder our world is screwed up - it's not MS that screwed up the world - it's the SOB's who do it.
I agree, these receipt check guys are assholes, and the store is being a complete dick for no other reason. There is NOTHING between the registers and the exit, WTF could I possibly have stolen?!
It is near impossible to get a distro that works with even the most extremely popular sound cards like SB Live, and SB Audigy. I'm sure I could have gotten it to work in RedHat, Mandrake, etc. but I'm talking a fresh install where it's configuring all your drivers for you
Huh? My Audigy 2 worked perfectly with a fresh install of Mandrake 10. The only things I had to do were install the Nvidia drivers for my video, and load the appropriate modules for my game pad (which was the hardest part). Everything else I had worked just fine...and if i had a 5.1 speaker set, I'd be using that for Doom3 as well. Even my my officejet was a breaze to setup.
Yes, MS has encourged it in the past although its gotten better.
I don't think you HAVE to create that user @ install time, especially if you're running Pro on a domain.
I believe local users are created as Power Users by default..but I'm not 100%. Of course if it is creating Admin by default then obviously thats something that needs to be addressed.
Out of curiosity, how do you propose MS fix this problem? Break backward compatibility, and thus no one will upgrade (b/c their apps break)? Have MS force every developer to comply with creating apps that work as Users? I don't see that getting far either.
Last time i tried BeOS, it didn't reconize my Nic at all...it was a fairly cheap (but common) reltek. I moved to Linux, and that's keeping me happy for now..but if there's a LiveCD of BeOS, i might try it again:-)
Restricting public radio is different than restricting the internet. If you want to hear a show with the word 'fuck' there are privatly owned radio solutions. What value does the word 'fuck' add to anything anyway?
Private radio stations can still get fined. And what value is there in censoring 'fuck' either?
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't explained why you feel the Supreme Court is wrong.
I feel the Supreme court is wrong because they ignored the first amendment.
The government clearly has the right to regulate the broadcasts of these companies, as they are engaged in interstate commerce.
Few radio station broadcasts cross state lines. Even so, regulating so that each station doens't try to overpower its competitors by boosting power is quite different then saying what content is allowed over the band.
You claim this regulation violates the First Amendment, but you haven't explained why.
I didn't think that it wasn't clear how censorship violates the first amendment. People have the right to speech, it doesn't matter if the listeners find what was said offensive or in bad taste.
Use of the public airwaves is a privilege, not a right.
Really? I didn't see any right granted to the feds or the states in the constition about the use of airwaves. Therefore, it falls to the people.
Complaining certainly is within your First Amendment rights.
I agree; its when those complaints are then used to justify censorship is where I have a problem.
One is a prior restraint, the other isn't.
Is the net result not the same for both?
I think you're taking two different comments out of context. FCC fines are similar to speed limits, in that they are a regulation over use of a public good. They do restrict speech, I suppose, but they don't violate the First Amendment.
Would you care to elaborate how you can restrict speech without violating the first amendment?
I don't care about whether or not I hear the speech.
Then why do you care what they are broadcasting? Oh, you don't want anyone else to hear it either..i see.
Then the public at large has a right to determine what is done with them.
And most of the public is fine with Stern, or what happened at the 2004 superbowl half time.
Yes it does. It's called interference.
No, it doesn't. Broadcasting Christain rock or howard stern still 'interferes' the same way. However you only want to elimate the interference when the latter is being broadcast.
Not frequencies which propagate well for certain types of purposes. And all of those frequencies are equally regulated anyway. The only one you can use for pretty much anything is MURS, and that is a very narrow band.
Then are you in favor of eliminating all FM band broadcasts? Or just the ones you don't like when you listen to them? If your issue is the bands then you have another gripe that has nothing to do with content.
Of course it matters. If it didn't matter, then broadcasters would have no problems broadcasting what the government wants them to broadcast.
So you're saying then that it is ok for the gov't to censor and violate the first amendment?
If someone else is using that band for something that benefits the public, then I'm OK with not using the band myself.
Do you fail to see that maybe other people disagree and feel that the stations are ALREADY using the band for public benefit?
Clearly I disagree.
Ahh, i see you can't hand anything that is outside your narrow view of the world. If you disagree, you want to block it. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in China, where the gov't does control broadcasts?
The licensing fees for those bands are actually more than those for FM radio.
So get the fees changed. Funny how i've setup point to point wireless internet without paying a cent for the spectrum.
My argument is that the radio broadcasters have taken a public resource away from the public by promising to use it for the public good and then they complain whenever the FCC tries to enforce that promise. They can't have it both ways. Either auction off the bands to the highest bidders and let them do whatever they want with them (i.e., the end of free radio), keep things the way they are now (i.e. government regulation), or just leave it as a big free-for-all where whoever can yell the loudest wins (i.e. tragedy of the commons).
YOU are saying that you don't believe its in the public good, others disagree. Why do you want to bend everyone to use only your definition of 'public good?'
I myself am a Howard Stern fan, as I've said above. That's not what this is about. This is about corporations stealing things from the public with lies.
What exactly then is the public good the radio stations are supposed to be serving if not to broadcast content? Obviously people feel the stations are serving a public intrest, or wouldn't be listening, at which point the stations would go under and the FM band would be open for others to license. What exactly are the 'lies' you're talking about? Did they promise 'clean wholesome fun for the family?'
At least it will cause them to lose their license so that a company that is working in my best interests can get it.
You should just admit that your problem is free thinking,and you hate the others don't have offensive the same content that you do. You want to control what they see and hear.
Um, the 'social control' you lament about in your last sentence is actually compelling others to leave you alone, not to do as you want them to.
Just like everything else, there are two sides. You CAN you force to oppress, but you can also use it to keep yourself free. I bet anyone who's been mugged had wish they had a gun on them.
I *do* think it's a good idea to check IDs at airports - this is because it makes it a little bit more difficult for terrorists to blow up aeroplanes.
All of the hijackers had valid, current IDs. What exactly would have been stopped?
I think the biggest danger that this thread brings up is the dangerous uniformity of opinion and fear that the state is out to get you...
Every gov't known to man has abused its powers. Why do you think ours is any different? The US was founded on the idea that the gov't shouldn't really have much power at all...because it can't abuse what it doesn't have.
I'd say the fundamental principal is flawed then. Do you really expect everyone to know EVERY law, local, state and federal?
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then there MUST be only a small number of laws whose change is infrequent.
Argh...
that first 'internal' should be 'agree.'
So..you internal with the right to be able to travel with out some sort of 'internal passport' but you agree with having to produce some sort of 'internal passport' to drive?
How exactly is your statement logical?
I don't buy your reasoning that to get a license is a test of 'worthiness.' Why the hell are blind 80 yr olds with diabetes allowed to drive then?
I believe what you are doing is called rationalization.
True, but this isn't an example of it.
Oh, well I see now how wrong I am. Good thing you were here to point that out to me.
You could have tried to explain why you feel the supreme court is right in their decision to allow censorship, but you just keep going with the 'I'm right you're wrong' argument.
Use of the public airwaves is a privilege, not a right.
Use of public property (which, by definition, everyone owns) is a privlege? Tell me, how does use of something that I am supposed to own only a privledge, especially when I'm using it to exercise one of my rights?
You don't need to sign every contract with a pen. People sign the FAFSA all the time without ever touching a mouse, and verbal contracts are also seen as legally binding in many places.
No, but you DO need to do more then open a box or make some pretty pictures appear on a screen.
Another poster pointed out the problems with your arguements, so I won't say anything else.
Lastly, to 'sign' FASFA requires more then just clicking I agree. Just like signing your federal income tax for an e-file...you must provide information only you should know. Simply clicking 'OK' isn't good enough.
Oh, and just because some webpage says something is true, doesn't mean it is. Try not to take web-pedia's definition as legal advice.
Of course not. I'm not a member of the FCC.
I see, so any small special intrest group or large mob gets to decide by complaining endlessly to the FCC. Why is it that setting strict guidelines violates the First amendment, but knowing that you could possibly be fined if you cross some aribtrary lines isn't considered a restriction? Many people have compared FCC fines to speed limits, but then turn around and say FCC fines dont restrict speech, even though thats the purpose of fining for speeding.
How does not listening to a station make up for the fact that these people are using my airwaves?
You don't hear the speech over the airwaves that you don't want to hear. Oh, and they aren't your airwaves. If they belong to anyone they belong to the public at large.
But it does. If you want to use my airwaves, then what I think is appropriate matters.
Since they are my airwaves also, what I think is appropriate matters too. And I think that unrestricted speech over the airwaves is appropriate.
As I've said, not listening to the radio doesn't allow me to use the radio spectrum for other things. The government has given the radio stations exclusive rights to that portion of the radio spectrum. In return they have to promote the public good.
And you're right..my whole point was that the content broadcast over the airwavs doesn't hinder in any way your using them for other purposes. There are other frequencies available. Does it matter if a station plays audio of hardcore sex or the teachings of jesus? Either way, YOU won't be using that band. Your nonsense about the public good is your way of saying 'i want to censor what is on the airwaves.' Censoring never serves the public good.
It does harm me. I can't use the FM spectrum to broadcast my radio station because of them. I can't create a point to point internet link using FM because of them. To say that Clearstation doesn't harm me by broadcasting its crap is nonsense.
Guess what, no matter what Clearchannel broadcasts, you won't be using that band. for some reason though you feel that taking away that band because you don't like the content will open it up for your uses. It won't.
You could use ANOTHER part of the band if you really wanted your own FM station. You have other bands for setting up point to point internet. Use those.
What exactly is your arguement? That you don't like smut on the radio, or you don't like not being able to use the FM band at all? You think that if a station does broadcast smut YOU should get the band b/c YOU don't like it? What about the people that do? Stern is still on because he has ALOT of fans. Get over yourself, if you don't like him don't listen. Either way, it won't transfer thier FM license to you.
Interesting thought process. Fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you. You have the right to speak whatever you want. You don't however have the right to use the public airwaves to promote that speech.
And unfortunalty sometimes the Supreme Court is wrong. I'd think that the airwaves would be a great place to exersice free speech, but I guess there's only room for speech that matches majority opinion.
While I agree with your point I'd also like to point out that the US did the EXACT same thing sometime between the 20s - 60s.
You have to draw a line somewhere... Where you draw that line is dictated by your morals, not your logic, though sometimes logic is used in an attempt to justify or disprove someone's morals.
Please, explain why you have to draw a line somewhere. Explain why, if you don't want to see those things at 11am why you can't just avoid those channels. There are plenty of ways you can avoid it; v-chip, using tv.yahoo.com to see what programming is on, almost every TV today allows you to 'list' the channels you want to cycle through as you press Up and down. Why do you have to force what you dislike off the air, when there are so many means available to you to avoid it if its there?
You may not like those things, but you shouldn't be trying to force your morals on others. Believe it or not, you can derive morals from logic as well, and my logic says 'leave other people alone.'
People can use anything as their cause and taint that cause, but it doesn't necessarily make that cause a bad thing.
The problem with religon is that forcing people to convert to said religon. Just this morning I had people harrasing me (even after I told them never to return again) to convert on my own property. In Columbus' time, many people were forcably converted in South America and Africa and here in America. This was church policy, not just 'some people.' See also the Inquisition.
Demand for the airwaves exceeds supply.
What does this have to do with regulating WHAT is said using those airwaves?
We choose to let these broadcasters use the airwaves in exchange for them acting in the public interest. It's not in the public interest to hear curses and fart noises.
And you get to decide that for everyone? Why not let the public decide by letting them choose which stations to listen to. Oh thats right, because you realize a majority of people might consider things offensive to you as entertainment for themselves, and that market forces would drive out christian radio in an instant.
This isn't about free speech. It's about regulation of a finite resource. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I can go into a public library and start yelling out obscenities.
It is about free speech; the fact that spectrum is limited does not justify that only what YOU think is appropriate should be broadcast over that spectrum. You can't choose what you hear in a library. You CAN choose what you hear on the radio. Don't tune into stations you don't like.
The fact is that people like you are facists and want to control what OTHER people are doing even though it causes no harm to you.
I'm a fan of Howard Stern, but at the same time I can understand why we have an FCC. The airwaves are a public resource, and as such they pretty much have to be regulated.
Except inthis case regulation flys directly in the face of the first amendment.
1) It is their store policy, if you do not like it - don't shop there.
Their policy cannot contradict the law; that is, they STILL do NOT have the power to detain me.
2) I could understand if they just selected a specific group of people (i.e. targeting only black people) then it would be a problem - they target everyone
So it would be ok for the police to search everyone driving down a certain street just for driving down the street? Good logic.
3) People do shoplift - on their own and with assistance from store clerks.
Employee theft is a MUCH larger problem then shoplifting; comparitively, the shoplifting is negligible.
4) Criminals can easily appear to be non-criminals (it's not that hard really). So those 20 store clerks you just hired - they seem reasonable - doesn't mean one of them won't steal
And that is the store's problem, not mine or The Vulture's. If employees steal, that doesn't mean they should be searching ME.
It is a naive, and actually from people on this board (which i expect more from) just plain being dickish to give these people a hard time.
Walking out of the store and saying 'no' to the check person is being dickish? Really? And then how dickish is being accused of stealing just b/c i shop there? And lets use your logic; if the check person doesn't like it, they can find some place else to work.
They are not being assholes to you by asking for your receipt - they are trying to protect themselves from being robbed.
How is accusing me of stealing and wanting to search me not being an asswhole? AS i stated before, most theft is done by employees. Maybe they should concentrate on that before accusing me of stealing.
One of your arguments is that if they didn't catch a person shoplifting at the register then their only means of preventing or catching a criminal is a camera? Like camera's do much.
Camera's are highly effective. Thats why casinos use them. If they can catch someone slipping a card in they can certainly catch someone not scanning an item. The fact is they are VERY effective at catching employees actively stealing.
You are being ridiculous. This conversation is a matter of opinion so it will go nowhere. Again, if you do not like a particular stores policy - don't shop there - I am sure you can buy the same or similar products in another store. But being a dick to someone who is doing their job makes you the bad guy - not the rent-a-cop.
Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of law (which you obviously don't understand). 'I'm just doing my job' isn't an excuse, as many war criminals found out.
I ask you to prove yourself and you tell me that I have no clue as to what I am talking. The logic of this goes how?
He doesn't have to prove himself; you're the one making offbase claims. He even told you were to look to find your answers. Stop being lazy, and do some research. I know he has, because my research agrees with his!
1) The law asks for reasonable, and lends reasonable to a broad aspect. Sort of like when a police officer stops someone under the "I had reason to believe...."
And the judge will ask what the circumstances were that lead the cop to believe his actions were reasonable. And if the judge doesn't like his answer, the case gets thrown out.
2)Well duh. Though you have yet to show me the law written anywhere to prove your statement
Maybe b/c he doesn't know what state you live in, and the laws do vary state to state. Why can't YOU go look it up? Or do you want him to so you can just try to discredit his source and you can keep your hands over your ears and your eyes closed.
The rest of your post isn't even worth replying to..you just don't want to hear you're wrong.
You walk out the store with a bag of stuff
The store gaurd asks you to show the receipt
You refuse
The store gaurd thinks "that is weird, why would a person who just bought something refuse to show me their receipt...unless they are shop lifting."
No, its not reasonable, since 99% of the stores out there do NOT do this. This is the old 'if you don't have anything to hide then what are you worried about' arguement.
Maybe you don't care about some uninvolved 3rd party knowing what you bought, and maybe you don't care about being accused of stealing JUST FOR LEAVING THE STORE, but many people do.
Apply the same logic to the police getting a search warrant; 'well he refused to let us search, so he must be hiding something please give us the warrant.' No judge would go for that WITHOUT other evidence. Your line of reasoning leads to the abolishment of even getting a warrant. Refusing to be searched becomes grounds to be searched.
Jesus, do people just do asshole things to be complete dicks for no other reason? No wonder our world is screwed up - it's not MS that screwed up the world - it's the SOB's who do it.
I agree, these receipt check guys are assholes, and the store is being a complete dick for no other reason. There is NOTHING between the registers and the exit, WTF could I possibly have stolen?!
It is near impossible to get a distro that works with even the most extremely popular sound cards like SB Live, and SB Audigy. I'm sure I could have gotten it to work in RedHat, Mandrake, etc. but I'm talking a fresh install where it's configuring all your drivers for you
Huh? My Audigy 2 worked perfectly with a fresh install of Mandrake 10. The only things I had to do were install the Nvidia drivers for my video, and load the appropriate modules for my game pad (which was the hardest part). Everything else I had worked just fine...and if i had a 5.1 speaker set, I'd be using that for Doom3 as well. Even my my officejet was a breaze to setup.
Huh?
My nvidia board works great under linux. How do you think I can play doom 3 w/o windows?
Walking out the store with items in a bag is not resonable suspicion..nor is refusing to be searched for no other reason then leaving the store.
I'd say its a fairly normal thing for customers to leave the store with items they bought..
Yes, MS has encourged it in the past although its gotten better.
I don't think you HAVE to create that user @ install time, especially if you're running Pro on a domain.
I believe local users are created as Power Users by default..but I'm not 100%. Of course if it is creating Admin by default then obviously thats something that needs to be addressed.
Out of curiosity, how do you propose MS fix this problem? Break backward compatibility, and thus no one will upgrade (b/c their apps break)? Have MS force every developer to comply with creating apps that work as Users? I don't see that getting far either.
Last time i tried BeOS, it didn't reconize my Nic at all...it was a fairly cheap (but common) reltek. I moved to Linux, and that's keeping me happy for now..but if there's a LiveCD of BeOS, i might try it again :-)
Restricting public radio is different than restricting the internet. If you want to hear a show with the word 'fuck' there are privatly owned radio solutions. What value does the word 'fuck' add to anything anyway?
Private radio stations can still get fined. And what value is there in censoring 'fuck' either?