If you're talking about Israel, there's no state religion in the country anymore than the US is a theocracy. The use of "Jewish" in the laws most likely refers to ethnicity and culture, not religion.
Israel isn't any more a theocracy than the UK is (and England does have an official state religion, but you don't see people calling it a theocracy). And Japanese are mostly non-practicing, but their taxes still fund the Emperor's trip to have sex with the sun goddess Amaterasu.
if you're identifying yourself as either, you're voluntarily lumping yourself in with one crowd or the other, so don't get angry when assumptions are made
QFT. There's only one thing about Lou Dobbs I like, and that's his attempts to bring "independent" back into mainstream politics.
Of course, "independent" on his show tends to come across more as "conservative, reactionary xenophobe."
pro-choice : pro-abortion:: killing in self-defense : murder
It's all in the justification. Suprisingly enough, most women don't get abortions because they love abortions (which is the opposite of the implication of "pro-abortion")!
ultimately, whether you consider yourself "pro-choice," "pro-life," whatever, you're arguing over one action--aborting a fetus
Yes, but the way you label your belief evinces your justification for the belief. "Pro-abortion" means you like killing babies and therefore support abortion. "Pro-choice" means you prefer women to have dominion over their bodies and therefore support abortion.
Of course, if you care only about outcome and not about motivation, you will disagree with what I've said.
The people who completely cover their car with bumper stickers are liberal, I'll give you that. But they are rare compared to the 89749374390 people with the calvin character praying in front of the cross or jesus fish or some other religious icon on their car.
Because "religious" and "liberal" are mutually exclusive.
If there's one thing Democrats royally screwed up on this century, it's allowing the Republicans to use abortion as the only True Test of religion. As opposed to "turn the other cheek" (anti-Iraqi-conflict), "do unto others" (pro-diplomacy-with-Iran), "love thy neighbor as thyself" (pro-gay-marriage), "Render unto Caesar" (maybe pro-taxes or pro-separation-of-church-and-state?), and to top it off environmentalism ought to be the most Christian of all issues (protecting God's creation, as we did get dominion over it in Genesis).
The problem is that, while quite a lot of Dems and a Repubs are really in their party for a single issue, the Republicans' single issues conflict with each other, and the Democrats' do not.
Really? "Protecting the little guy" and "selling votes to big media" don't conflict with each other? Because guess what! Democrats do both (see, e.g., copyright issues, where Democrats sell us down the river).
That being said, I'm some sort of classical liberal-Democrat hybrid. I don't even know what terms to use anymore. Strongly left socially and mildly left economically? I think that makes me a slight somethingorother.
You talk about UN resolutions that were issued a long time ago (many over a decade ago). The problem is that these resolutions give very little justification for a unilateral response by America.
What we had were very weak legal arguments and an administration eager to flex its muscle before the law could restrain it. I'm not saying the administration made the right or wrong decision (before you accuse me of being partisan).
I am saying that the argument that UN resolutions justified our invasion of Iraq is a very weak justification because the UN resolutions were likely intended to govern multilateral UN actions, not unilateral US actions.
They used this cartel to force artists to give up their copyrights to the labels or be locked out of mainstream distribution.
And that's why you can revoke a transfer of copyright. I admit that the term through which you cannot revoke is too long, but a transfer of copyright is trivially revocable.
Write songs for the artists? If you cant write songs you are a meerly a preformer, you have no right to call yourself an artist.
So you're saying opera singers are not artists because they don't write opera? Actors are not artists because they don't write the scripts? The human voice is as much an instrument as a piano, and "artist" does not mean "can do something that requires equipment."
I gotta be honest, Ray. I really look forward to the day I make partner (or have my own firm like you) and can find enough time in my day to get on Slashdot. It's been the bane of my existence this summer, and I'm not even responsible for meeting a billable hours quota yet!
So you just took COPS which follows REAL POLICE OFFICERS and compared it to a Fake Court show (Where they agree to be bound by the decision) and The Real World where they pick the most ridiculous people to live together possible to create drama. COPS IS the norm.
I admit that my analogies were flawed. But my point was that COPS is emphatically not the norm. I have had the privilege of knowing police, and they're not like that. Yeah, yeah, anecdotal evidence and all that. But citing COPS is anecdotal evidence, too.
Combine this with people not knowing their rights and almost every search of a car is actually illegal but the evidence is included in the case anyways.
All people get lawyers in court. I've sat in on in forma pauperis proceedings where a judge determines whether a person is poor enough to appoint counsel for free. It's ridiculously easy to get counsel appointed.
Even really crappy lawyers will challenge evidence obtained in the search and seizure of a car. Interesting fact: stopping the car counts as a seizure. This is why pulling a car over without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment (the act of pulling a car over is clearly not a "seearch").
Yeah, and COPS is the norm. Just like Judge Judy depicts a courtroom accurately. And just like The Real World accurately depicts urban life.
If the cops do that, a court will rightly suppress any evidence obtained in that manner. This is black-letter law and judges do it all the time. There are so many cases out there saying this in every jurisdiction.
Also, I've never seen that happen on COPS. Then again, I haven't watched COPS since I was a kid.
Now they can just search your car just because they pulled you over for a broken tail light.
That's inaccurate and misleading. I should know, as I worked on this specific issue for the US Attorney General about two months ago (a man tried to get evidence found in his car suppressed, and I had to address this specific issue in a response opposing the suppression). The officer cannot search unless (1) you give him permission, (2) he has a warrant, or (3) he has probable cause based on something illegal he perceived (e.g., he smelled weed when you rolled the window down or he sees a beer bottle in the passenger seat, open).
On the other hand, a police officer cannot search the trunk of your car when he pulls you over for any reason unless he perceives something illegal going on (say, he sees weed on the floor by the passenger seat).
Secondly a bottle of chlorine solution is not quite up there with a bottle of miller light in your hand when you are driving. Your analogy is totally insufficient.
You know, you're right. Based on what I've read about the man's situation, my car analogy should be "police saw three hundred beer bottles in the passenger seat."
The nonexistence of a HOA would not prevent a neighbor from calling 911 after seeing you with a lot of wires and boxen. (We still say "boxen," right? Is that still cool?)
Slashdot Mirror
If you're talking about Israel, there's no state religion in the country anymore than the US is a theocracy. The use of "Jewish" in the laws most likely refers to ethnicity and culture, not religion.
Israel isn't any more a theocracy than the UK is (and England does have an official state religion, but you don't see people calling it a theocracy). And Japanese are mostly non-practicing, but their taxes still fund the Emperor's trip to have sex with the sun goddess Amaterasu.
QFT. There's only one thing about Lou Dobbs I like, and that's his attempts to bring "independent" back into mainstream politics.
Of course, "independent" on his show tends to come across more as "conservative, reactionary xenophobe."
Well, if you want to go down that route, people use "morality" and "ethics" interchangeably in common parlance.
pro-choice : pro-abortion :: killing in self-defense : murder
It's all in the justification. Suprisingly enough, most women don't get abortions because they love abortions (which is the opposite of the implication of "pro-abortion")!
Yes, but the way you label your belief evinces your justification for the belief. "Pro-abortion" means you like killing babies and therefore support abortion. "Pro-choice" means you prefer women to have dominion over their bodies and therefore support abortion.
Of course, if you care only about outcome and not about motivation, you will disagree with what I've said.
Because "religious" and "liberal" are mutually exclusive.
If there's one thing Democrats royally screwed up on this century, it's allowing the Republicans to use abortion as the only True Test of religion. As opposed to "turn the other cheek" (anti-Iraqi-conflict), "do unto others" (pro-diplomacy-with-Iran), "love thy neighbor as thyself" (pro-gay-marriage), "Render unto Caesar" (maybe pro-taxes or pro-separation-of-church-and-state?), and to top it off environmentalism ought to be the most Christian of all issues (protecting God's creation, as we did get dominion over it in Genesis).
Really? "Protecting the little guy" and "selling votes to big media" don't conflict with each other? Because guess what! Democrats do both (see, e.g., copyright issues, where Democrats sell us down the river).
That being said, I'm some sort of classical liberal-Democrat hybrid. I don't even know what terms to use anymore. Strongly left socially and mildly left economically? I think that makes me a slight somethingorother.
You talk about UN resolutions that were issued a long time ago (many over a decade ago). The problem is that these resolutions give very little justification for a unilateral response by America.
What we had were very weak legal arguments and an administration eager to flex its muscle before the law could restrain it. I'm not saying the administration made the right or wrong decision (before you accuse me of being partisan).
I am saying that the argument that UN resolutions justified our invasion of Iraq is a very weak justification because the UN resolutions were likely intended to govern multilateral UN actions, not unilateral US actions.
That is not the distinction between "morals" and "ethics."
Yes. I lived in Japan for a year, and had just about 45Mbps/10Mbps for $40/mo.
Holy moley, 768 megabits per second up?!
Honestly, I think that would be even more heavy-handed than what Lucas has done with the films.
Also also underline the point that he wouldn't have had the enjoyment of possessing memorabilia from a movie he really loves.
Excuse me while I enjoy my courts' ability to restrict the legislature since they are not just la bouche de la loi.
Man, someone needs to make a fanart of Ray as Dhalsim NOW.
And that's why you can revoke a transfer of copyright. I admit that the term through which you cannot revoke is too long, but a transfer of copyright is trivially revocable.
You know, people so frequently forget Lawrence Lessig (CC and EFF) and Eben Moglen (FSF).
So you're saying opera singers are not artists because they don't write opera? Actors are not artists because they don't write the scripts? The human voice is as much an instrument as a piano, and "artist" does not mean "can do something that requires equipment."
I gotta be honest, Ray. I really look forward to the day I make partner (or have my own firm like you) and can find enough time in my day to get on Slashdot. It's been the bane of my existence this summer, and I'm not even responsible for meeting a billable hours quota yet!
I admit that my analogies were flawed. But my point was that COPS is emphatically not the norm. I have had the privilege of knowing police, and they're not like that. Yeah, yeah, anecdotal evidence and all that. But citing COPS is anecdotal evidence, too.
All people get lawyers in court. I've sat in on in forma pauperis proceedings where a judge determines whether a person is poor enough to appoint counsel for free. It's ridiculously easy to get counsel appointed.
Even really crappy lawyers will challenge evidence obtained in the search and seizure of a car. Interesting fact: stopping the car counts as a seizure. This is why pulling a car over without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment (the act of pulling a car over is clearly not a "seearch").
Yeah, and COPS is the norm. Just like Judge Judy depicts a courtroom accurately. And just like The Real World accurately depicts urban life.
If the cops do that, a court will rightly suppress any evidence obtained in that manner. This is black-letter law and judges do it all the time. There are so many cases out there saying this in every jurisdiction.
Also, I've never seen that happen on COPS. Then again, I haven't watched COPS since I was a kid.
NARF!
That's inaccurate and misleading. I should know, as I worked on this specific issue for the US Attorney General about two months ago (a man tried to get evidence found in his car suppressed, and I had to address this specific issue in a response opposing the suppression). The officer cannot search unless (1) you give him permission, (2) he has a warrant, or (3) he has probable cause based on something illegal he perceived (e.g., he smelled weed when you rolled the window down or he sees a beer bottle in the passenger seat, open).
On the other hand, a police officer cannot search the trunk of your car when he pulls you over for any reason unless he perceives something illegal going on (say, he sees weed on the floor by the passenger seat).
You know, you're right. Based on what I've read about the man's situation, my car analogy should be "police saw three hundred beer bottles in the passenger seat."
Today, Miniplenty announced a doubling of the freedom fries ration! We love BB!
The nonexistence of a HOA would not prevent a neighbor from calling 911 after seeing you with a lot of wires and boxen. (We still say "boxen," right? Is that still cool?)