The established press has many restrictions placed on it.Outside the broadcasters, I totally disagree. What media restrictions do newspapers, for example, operate under?
They were passing unconstitutional bills of attainder and trying to override the independent judgement of the courts (who had ruled consistently on this case over a dozen times).
They want one particular creation myth taught in science class (complete with "evidence" that this nonscience should actually be believed), no evolution taught at all, and no other creation myths taught at all.
I think this is a straw man. Of the those who favor the teaching of creation theory, I don't believe any but a tiny minority also want to eliminate the teaching of evolution, nor do I think this has ever actually occurred in recent times.
Without this, it is just too easy for some scumbag to subvert the democratic process by making outrageous claims in a blog a few days before the polls.
You can take away my human right to make outrageous claims when you pry my keyboard from my cold, dead, hands.
Look at every single conservative/republican state. Every one. without fail, regulates speech - especially in the areas of patriotism (can't speak ill of the troops or against war, flag burning frowned upon) and sexuality (can't be gay, or show boobies on TV, or make pornography) and religion (can't speak against the Church).
Show me one person successfully prosectued for any of these things (with the exception of boobs on TV, which is an FCC issue.)
I was under the impression that the big killer for electric shocks is heart fibrillation. I believe that humans can withstand quite a zap (up to the point that tissue burning occurs) as long as the path of the current doesn't flow through the heart. (I've heard of electricians that only work one-handed near live wires for this reason). On the other side, there's an anecdote about a young midshipman in the Navy who wanted to measure the resistance of his body inside the sking and stuck two voltage test probes in his thumbs, one in each hand, and the nine-volt battery in the tester was just enough to cause fibirillation in his heart and he died.
This only applies to broadcast media, on the theory that the broadcasters do not own the electromagnetic spectrum; they are licensing its use from the FCC and have to agree to essentially a EULA under which they waive some of their First Amendment rights.
Wouldn't you want to know, if, say, one of the editors was in fact being paid by Bill Gates to post pro-Microsoft stories (not that they'd ever get posted here, but you get the idea).
Your voyeuristic proclivities do not make it right, or ethical, or legal. If it was any other information that the government really wanted to know, like what books you were buying, or where you were shopping, or what doctor you went to, would you feel the same cavalier attitude? It's MY speech - WTF business is it of anyone's WHY I say what I say?
He would be breaking campaign finance laws, if he were not specifically exempted and thus above the law. In other words, he would be breaking the campaign finance laws that you and I would be breaking if we did the same thing.
Both my classic NES and my Super Nintendo basically stopped working after about 4 years. I mean, WTF? There aren't even any moving parts! And the Super Nintendo even had some kind of tamper-proof screws that stymied my efforts to even TRY and fix it. After that, I gave up on the consoles and went to something more user-serviceable: a PC.
Ah, no. These words have specific legal meanings, especially in criminal contexts. If this were true, then that means that YOU could be prosecuted for somebody else stealing YOUR CAR, because you made it too easy or something. Wrong answer. Generally speaking, it is not a crime to be careless, even extremely careless, with your own property.
Under the most popular proposal, sales tax is only collected when an item is sold as new from a retailer. Second-hand and personal sales do not count.
This plan is also more progressive than a property tax (potentially MUCH more progressive).
is it OK to break the law as long as you don't make too much profit or cause someone too greater losses?
Yes, definitely! That's the "fair" part of "fair use." That's how the courts balance these cases. Was the copying reasonable? Was the use of the copies fair?
U fear the UN it seems....U should....It shall undermine your world dominance......many want US to rule....even more want US to fall....and I...want neither...I prefer UN over US....it is no good, being "ruled" either way..:( And you...talk...like William...Shatner...
It doesn't work that way. People are more inclined to trust a person who makes good decision based on erroneous information, if the reliance was reasonable, than a person who makes poor decisions based on correct information (e.g., Kofi "we don't have to do anything if we don't call it genocide" Annan).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that Tenet's "resignation" was a coincidence; do you?
The established press has many restrictions placed on it.Outside the broadcasters, I totally disagree. What media restrictions do newspapers, for example, operate under?
I take it you haven't visited the UK recently...
Wrong on both counts. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. No such thing existed here. And the act that Congress passed simply created a new jurisdiction for the federal courts, something it explicitly has the power to do under Article III, Section 1.
I think this is a straw man. Of the those who favor the teaching of creation theory, I don't believe any but a tiny minority also want to eliminate the teaching of evolution, nor do I think this has ever actually occurred in recent times.
You can take away my human right to make outrageous claims when you pry my keyboard from my cold, dead, hands.
Show me one person successfully prosectued for any of these things (with the exception of boobs on TV, which is an FCC issue.)
Saddam also has the irritating characteristic of not being dead yet.
I was under the impression that the big killer for electric shocks is heart fibrillation. I believe that humans can withstand quite a zap (up to the point that tissue burning occurs) as long as the path of the current doesn't flow through the heart. (I've heard of electricians that only work one-handed near live wires for this reason). On the other side, there's an anecdote about a young midshipman in the Navy who wanted to measure the resistance of his body inside the sking and stuck two voltage test probes in his thumbs, one in each hand, and the nine-volt battery in the tester was just enough to cause fibirillation in his heart and he died.
Are you including the value of your time and labor? Because that usually counts for campaign-finance-related purposes.
This only applies to broadcast media, on the theory that the broadcasters do not own the electromagnetic spectrum; they are licensing its use from the FCC and have to agree to essentially a EULA under which they waive some of their First Amendment rights.
Right?
Your voyeuristic proclivities do not make it right, or ethical, or legal. If it was any other information that the government really wanted to know, like what books you were buying, or where you were shopping, or what doctor you went to, would you feel the same cavalier attitude? It's MY speech - WTF business is it of anyone's WHY I say what I say?
He would be breaking campaign finance laws, if he were not specifically exempted and thus above the law. In other words, he would be breaking the campaign finance laws that you and I would be breaking if we did the same thing.
Both my classic NES and my Super Nintendo basically stopped working after about 4 years. I mean, WTF? There aren't even any moving parts! And the Super Nintendo even had some kind of tamper-proof screws that stymied my efforts to even TRY and fix it. After that, I gave up on the consoles and went to something more user-serviceable: a PC.
Ah, no. These words have specific legal meanings, especially in criminal contexts. If this were true, then that means that YOU could be prosecuted for somebody else stealing YOUR CAR, because you made it too easy or something. Wrong answer. Generally speaking, it is not a crime to be careless, even extremely careless, with your own property.
Look and feel of a product, or in lawyerspeak "trade dress," is a matter of trademark, not patent.
Eh. Parent link was supposed to be fairtax.org.
Under the most popular proposal, sales tax is only collected when an item is sold as new from a retailer. Second-hand and personal sales do not count. This plan is also more progressive than a property tax (potentially MUCH more progressive).
Keeping in mind of course, that "disagrees with you" != "poorly reasoned"
Did you mean: copyright
Yes, definitely! That's the "fair" part of "fair use." That's how the courts balance these cases. Was the copying reasonable? Was the use of the copies fair?
U fear the UN it seems....U should....It shall undermine your world dominance......many want US to rule....even more want US to fall....and I...want neither...I prefer UN over US....it is no good, being "ruled" either way..:( And you...talk...like William...Shatner...
It doesn't work that way. People are more inclined to trust a person who makes good decision based on erroneous information, if the reliance was reasonable, than a person who makes poor decisions based on correct information (e.g., Kofi "we don't have to do anything if we don't call it genocide" Annan).
Do you have an attribution for this quote? I couldn't locate one on Google.