Because they tried to limit the use of fleeting indecency until a New York Court said that the FCC couldn't do that (under the statutes that granted the FCC its authority). So now, Congress is expanding the FCC's authority to expressly address the perceived problem.
Actually, broadcasters have significantly reduced First Amendment rights, and have for decades. In fact, the recent trend has been for them to enjoy more First Amendment protection.
Here's the scoop: Broadcasters get a license from the Government to use an extremely scarce public resource--a chunk of the EM spectrum. In exchange for that license they agree to be regulated by the FCC, which includes an agreement not to broadcast indecent speech.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that indecent broadcast speech can be restricted. Unlike ordinary public speech, which one can ignore simply by going home and closing the door, indecent speech (and images) can be broadcast through the walls of your home at any time of the day or night. It can even be inserted into an otherwise innocuous broadcast.
And while it's true that a motivated speaker with a bullhorn can make himself (or herself) heard inside your home, that speech is subject to normal content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions. Most municipalities have noise ordinances prohibiting that kind of amplified speech.
For those folks having a hard time connecting this to the Fifth Amendment, I provide the following:
The text of the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The part that the submitter is focused on is: "nor shall any person . . . be deprived of . . . property[] without due process of law."
The question presented is whether a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense is sufficient process to support such a deprivation. Odds are, it's not. At a minimum, constitutional due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard (though notice may be given ex post facto in the case of an emergency). As this executive order stands, there is no opportunity for an individual whose property has been seized to challenge the seizure. In fact, there's no procedure for such a hearing to occur.
That's the Fifth Amendment Issue implicated by the Executive Order.
No, you shouldn't. Hermaphrodism is the presence of sex organs for both genders. These sharks are all female. They just happen to be able to parthenogenically reproduce.
One of the factors courts look at in determining whether you got what you paid for is "usage in the trade." Thus, if the entire LCD manufacturing industry's custom is to refer to 6-bit LCDs as "capable of displaying millions of colors," then Apple has provided what they've promised to provide. The law assumes that the public will go out and do a little research to determine what they're buying.
Suing is the only option for redressing and resolving intractable differences of opinion between people that our system permits. It's no longer acceptable to slap your neighbor and demand satisfaction of an insult with blood--dueling is illegal. You can no longer go and grab your neighbors to deal with the local lascivious woman--stoning is illegal.
What you can do is take your conflict to a group of your neighbors and rationally explain what's wrong and how you would like it fixed. We also allow the judgment of your neighbors to be enforced by the State. Instead of executing thieves, cutting the hands off of doctors for malpractice, or cutting the tongues from liars, we permit compensation using the currency of the land.
Most cases never see any media attention.
The civil justice system works. It works now, and it has worked for the past 600 years. The only people who say otherwise are people who don't believe in personal responsibility and being personally accountable for their actions.
Assume, for this argument that the CD retails for $15.99.
Assume also that the retailer paid 14.88 for it.
Thus, each stolen CD is a $14.88 loss. To make up for it, the retailer then has to sell fifteen (well, 14.405405) CDs, just to break even.
And, with commodities like CDs, it's not like the retailer can just bump up the price to $16.99 to make up the difference in half the time. If the price is out of line for the product, the customer will simply buy it from another retailer at the MSRP.
The worst part of this deal is that the one who takes the hit is the retailer, not the publisher. The RIAA has already made their money off the sale to the retailer. That 15:1 ratio is a killer for the local retailer. Thus, the only people who can afford to traffic in such low margin commodities are nation-wide chains like WalMart, because they can spread the losses across the entire chain.
From TFA:
"'It did not appear to be electronic (analog) in nature or have a power source," wrote one U.S. contractor, who discovered the coin in the cup holder of a rental car. "Under high power microscope, it appeared to be complex consisting of several layers of clear, but different material, with a wire like mesh suspended on top.'"
--AC
Perhaps the fact that, ironically, copyright law protects derivative as well as original works.
Thus, while he may be on the hook for infringing on others' works, you'd still be liable for infringing on his works.
--AC
That almost sounds like my upgrade path. Wait until Microsoft if "finished" with an OS then upgrade. You can tell they're almost done when they release the next one.
--AC
IAAL That's pretty standard language in court pleadings. Almost any time you ask the Court to do something, you include it in a "prayer for relief."
--G
Fortunately, Blizzard isn't suing teenagers, they're suing a company that produces a piece of software, which it sells to permit said teenagers to cheat.
If you're going to go to war against a company like Blizzard, you should make sure you've paid your lawyers' retainer first. I have no pity for the folks that produce WoWGlider. They've brought this on themselves.
Well, first off, SOE has no tools for preventing THAT from happening again. If they did, I'd bet Blizzard would be quite surprised.
Second, Blizzard's official line is that THAT never happened. It was a hoax. I can't say whether it did or not, but I can say I'm not any richer than I was before the duping exploit was "found."
Technically worker's compensation insurance is no fault insurance. It means it doesn't matter whether the employer took reasonable steps or not because injuries are an inevitable part of doing business. The whole purpose of WC insurance is to protect the worker from career ending injury by providing the necessary medical care and rehabilitation.
You are correct. I should have said "a person acts negligently if he acts or fails to act as would a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances."
--AC
Pardon me if this sounds pedantic, but tort law is so misunderstood that I'd like the opportunity to correct this post.
In Common Law countries, all people have a duty to act as would a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances. A person is negligent if they breach that duty and cause injury to another.
In other words, the city is negligent if it fails to repair a sidewalk that a reasonably prudent person would have repaired. In situations where a party lacks notice of a defect, the same analysis applies: should a reasonably prudent person responsible for the maintenance of a sidewalk have been aware of the defect.
Here's an example: 10 minutes ago, NYC experienced a minor, highly localized earthquake that fractured the sidewalk outside my apartment. 7 minutes ago, I realized I was out of milk. 4 minutes ago, I stepped out of the building, tripped on the damaged sidewalk, and broke my leg in 12 places.
A reasonably prudent city probably wouldn't be able to repair the damage in the six minutes between earthquake and injury. Probably, the city government wouldn't even be aware of it by then. Thus, the city couldn't be negligent.
A more likely explanation is that the law firms are videotaping the sidewalks and sending them to the city government to put them on notice of serious flaws in the sidewalk. Then they can argue that the city was on notice of the defects and failed to act reasonably by not repairing the damage.
But negligence does not require evidence of willful conduct. Negligence is merely a failure to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
--AC
Now that you've modded the parent down, you should mod me down too.
But you forget the critical key point.
I don't have to pay that money until April of 2006. Oh, and I've got a great opportunity to flip some of my iPods and free songs to cover any discrepancy.
--AC
"SITH" SPOILERS You've been warned... - "Revenge of the Sith" is, quite simply, fucking awesome. This is the "Star Wars" prequel the haters have been bitching for since "Menace" came out, and if they don't cop to that when they finally see it, they're lying. As dark as "Empire" was, this movie goes a thousand times darker (spoilers removed), this flick is so satisfyingly tragic, you'll think you're watching "Othello" or "Hamlet".
I saw a gorgeous digitally projected version of the flick, and lemme tell ya': this is a beautiful looking film. The opening space battle sequence is the best in any of the six "Star Wars" movies. (General Spoilers Removed)
Perfect example of how dark shit gets: (very cool, very dark spoiler removed).
Yes, it's just that dark - and rightfully so. This is the birth of Darth Vader we're talking about. The only comic moments in the flick are given to R2D2, and while good, they're all pretty few and far between; the order of the day is dark, dark, dark.
Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor steal the show, but Hayden Christensen silences any naysayers who wrote him off as too whiney in "Clones". This is the flick that feels closest to Episodes 4, 5, and 6, because - for the first time since "Return of the Jedi" - there is a clear villain. And for all the shadow-play Palpatine has been upto in the last two flicks, his treachery is about as subtle as John Williams' score in "Sith." (Spoilers Removed)
The last fifteen minutes dovetail nicely into Episode 4 (or just plain "Star Wars" for you non-geeks), and the movie is full of link-up moments as well.
(Spoilers Removed)
Look, this is a movie I was genetically predisposed to love. (spoiler removed). Now, twenty six years later, I finally got to see that long-promised battle - and it lived up to any expectation I still held. I was sad to see the flick end, but happy to know it's not the end of the "Star Wars" universe entirely (I've read stuff about a TV show...).
They can't just add people back in when they've been blocked either - there has to have been some resolution of the problem, and that has to come from the ISP, at least IMHO. A customer running a website will say anything (especially if they're a scum-of-the-earth-spammer-type customer) to get back online. AN ISP who lies knows their next block will be more permanent...
So let's see: if the website operator is a good businessman, he'll say he's a good businessman and not a spammer. And MAPS will block him.
If a website operator is a spammer, he'll say he's a good businessman and not a spammer. And MAPS will block him.
The most efficient answer, then, is to block everyone.
This is a poor justification for what they're doing. It amounts to blaming the victim for the conduct of another, and it shouldn't be tolerated.
--G
Slashdot Mirror
Because they tried to limit the use of fleeting indecency until a New York Court said that the FCC couldn't do that (under the statutes that granted the FCC its authority). So now, Congress is expanding the FCC's authority to expressly address the perceived problem.
--AC
Actually, broadcasters have significantly reduced First Amendment rights, and have for decades. In fact, the recent trend has been for them to enjoy more First Amendment protection.
Here's the scoop: Broadcasters get a license from the Government to use an extremely scarce public resource--a chunk of the EM spectrum. In exchange for that license they agree to be regulated by the FCC, which includes an agreement not to broadcast indecent speech.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that indecent broadcast speech can be restricted. Unlike ordinary public speech, which one can ignore simply by going home and closing the door, indecent speech (and images) can be broadcast through the walls of your home at any time of the day or night. It can even be inserted into an otherwise innocuous broadcast.
And while it's true that a motivated speaker with a bullhorn can make himself (or herself) heard inside your home, that speech is subject to normal content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions. Most municipalities have noise ordinances prohibiting that kind of amplified speech.
--AC
For those folks having a hard time connecting this to the Fifth Amendment, I provide the following:
The text of the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The part that the submitter is focused on is: "nor shall any person . . . be deprived of . . . property[] without due process of law."
The question presented is whether a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense is sufficient process to support such a deprivation. Odds are, it's not. At a minimum, constitutional due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard (though notice may be given ex post facto in the case of an emergency). As this executive order stands, there is no opportunity for an individual whose property has been seized to challenge the seizure. In fact, there's no procedure for such a hearing to occur.
That's the Fifth Amendment Issue implicated by the Executive Order.
--G
No, you shouldn't. Hermaphrodism is the presence of sex organs for both genders. These sharks are all female. They just happen to be able to parthenogenically reproduce.
--AC
Here's the interesting legal twist, though:
One of the factors courts look at in determining whether you got what you paid for is "usage in the trade." Thus, if the entire LCD manufacturing industry's custom is to refer to 6-bit LCDs as "capable of displaying millions of colors," then Apple has provided what they've promised to provide. The law assumes that the public will go out and do a little research to determine what they're buying.
--AC
Suing is the only option for redressing and resolving intractable differences of opinion between people that our system permits. It's no longer acceptable to slap your neighbor and demand satisfaction of an insult with blood--dueling is illegal. You can no longer go and grab your neighbors to deal with the local lascivious woman--stoning is illegal.
What you can do is take your conflict to a group of your neighbors and rationally explain what's wrong and how you would like it fixed. We also allow the judgment of your neighbors to be enforced by the State. Instead of executing thieves, cutting the hands off of doctors for malpractice, or cutting the tongues from liars, we permit compensation using the currency of the land.
Most cases never see any media attention.
The civil justice system works. It works now, and it has worked for the past 600 years. The only people who say otherwise are people who don't believe in personal responsibility and being personally accountable for their actions.
--AC
Nope, you've got it.
Here's how it works.
Assume, for this argument that the CD retails for $15.99.
Assume also that the retailer paid 14.88 for it.
Thus, each stolen CD is a $14.88 loss. To make up for it, the retailer then has to sell fifteen (well, 14.405405) CDs, just to break even.
And, with commodities like CDs, it's not like the retailer can just bump up the price to $16.99 to make up the difference in half the time. If the price is out of line for the product, the customer will simply buy it from another retailer at the MSRP.
The worst part of this deal is that the one who takes the hit is the retailer, not the publisher. The RIAA has already made their money off the sale to the retailer. That 15:1 ratio is a killer for the local retailer. Thus, the only people who can afford to traffic in such low margin commodities are nation-wide chains like WalMart, because they can spread the losses across the entire chain.
--AC
From TFA: "'It did not appear to be electronic (analog) in nature or have a power source," wrote one U.S. contractor, who discovered the coin in the cup holder of a rental car. "Under high power microscope, it appeared to be complex consisting of several layers of clear, but different material, with a wire like mesh suspended on top.'" --AC
Perhaps the fact that, ironically, copyright law protects derivative as well as original works. Thus, while he may be on the hook for infringing on others' works, you'd still be liable for infringing on his works. --AC
That almost sounds like my upgrade path. Wait until Microsoft if "finished" with an OS then upgrade. You can tell they're almost done when they release the next one. --AC
IAAL That's pretty standard language in court pleadings. Almost any time you ask the Court to do something, you include it in a "prayer for relief." --G
Fortunately, Blizzard isn't suing teenagers, they're suing a company that produces a piece of software, which it sells to permit said teenagers to cheat.
If you're going to go to war against a company like Blizzard, you should make sure you've paid your lawyers' retainer first. I have no pity for the folks that produce WoWGlider. They've brought this on themselves.
--AC
Well, first off, SOE has no tools for preventing THAT from happening again. If they did, I'd bet Blizzard would be quite surprised.
Second, Blizzard's official line is that THAT never happened. It was a hoax. I can't say whether it did or not, but I can say I'm not any richer than I was before the duping exploit was "found."
--AC
Technically worker's compensation insurance is no fault insurance. It means it doesn't matter whether the employer took reasonable steps or not because injuries are an inevitable part of doing business. The whole purpose of WC insurance is to protect the worker from career ending injury by providing the necessary medical care and rehabilitation.
--AC
Actually, according to this article (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/20050 8/200508080012.html), he didn't quit his job so much as he was fired.
--AC
You are correct. I should have said "a person acts negligently if he acts or fails to act as would a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances." --AC
You do realize that this is patently incorrect?
Pardon me if this sounds pedantic, but tort law is so misunderstood that I'd like the opportunity to correct this post.
In Common Law countries, all people have a duty to act as would a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances. A person is negligent if they breach that duty and cause injury to another.
In other words, the city is negligent if it fails to repair a sidewalk that a reasonably prudent person would have repaired. In situations where a party lacks notice of a defect, the same analysis applies: should a reasonably prudent person responsible for the maintenance of a sidewalk have been aware of the defect.
Here's an example: 10 minutes ago, NYC experienced a minor, highly localized earthquake that fractured the sidewalk outside my apartment. 7 minutes ago, I realized I was out of milk. 4 minutes ago, I stepped out of the building, tripped on the damaged sidewalk, and broke my leg in 12 places.
A reasonably prudent city probably wouldn't be able to repair the damage in the six minutes between earthquake and injury. Probably, the city government wouldn't even be aware of it by then. Thus, the city couldn't be negligent.
A more likely explanation is that the law firms are videotaping the sidewalks and sending them to the city government to put them on notice of serious flaws in the sidewalk. Then they can argue that the city was on notice of the defects and failed to act reasonably by not repairing the damage.
But negligence does not require evidence of willful conduct. Negligence is merely a failure to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
--AC
Now that you've modded the parent down, you should mod me down too.
But you forget the critical key point. I don't have to pay that money until April of 2006. Oh, and I've got a great opportunity to flip some of my iPods and free songs to cover any discrepancy. --AC
Except, of course, that Greenwich's GIS database probably doesn't have any FEMA data, since FEMA's a Federal Program.
Oh and there's the part where Connecticut's open records act is different than FOIA.
Finally, I kind of doubt that Greenwich's municipal database contains the same kind of detailed information that FEMA's did.
While I'm sure that there's some private data in Greenwich's database, the FOIA commission ordered that certain private information be sanitized.
I think it's perhaps a little premature to "Kiss that goodbye!"
--AC
I don't know, they look pretty square to me . . .
2 44263,-149.808726&spn=0.006927,0.010224&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=anchorage+ak&ll=61.
If anyone's curious, that's my old house.
--AC
How about this: They're just out to get the money that's fairly theirs? I mean, that's the deal, isn't it? Pay the money, see my movie. --AC
What? The government shouldn't be regulating access to emergency services?
That's about the only thing the government should be regulating.
If you're going to play like you're a phone company, you're going to have to play like you're a complete phone company.
--AC
"SITH" SPOILERS
You've been warned...
- "Revenge of the Sith" is, quite simply, fucking awesome. This is the "Star Wars" prequel the haters have been bitching for since "Menace" came out, and if they don't cop to that when they finally see it, they're lying. As dark as "Empire" was, this movie goes a thousand times darker (spoilers removed), this flick is so satisfyingly tragic, you'll think you're watching "Othello" or "Hamlet".
I saw a gorgeous digitally projected version of the flick, and lemme tell ya': this is a beautiful looking film. The opening space battle sequence is the best in any of the six "Star Wars" movies. (General Spoilers Removed)
Perfect example of how dark shit gets: (very cool, very dark spoiler removed).
Yes, it's just that dark - and rightfully so. This is the birth of Darth Vader we're talking about. The only comic moments in the flick are given to R2D2, and while good, they're all pretty few and far between; the order of the day is dark, dark, dark.
Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor steal the show, but Hayden Christensen silences any naysayers who wrote him off as too whiney in "Clones". This is the flick that feels closest to Episodes 4, 5, and 6, because - for the first time since "Return of the Jedi" - there is a clear villain. And for all the shadow-play Palpatine has been upto in the last two flicks, his treachery is about as subtle as John Williams' score in "Sith." (Spoilers Removed)
The last fifteen minutes dovetail nicely into Episode 4 (or just plain "Star Wars" for you non-geeks), and the movie is full of link-up moments as well.
(Spoilers Removed)
Look, this is a movie I was genetically predisposed to love. (spoiler removed). Now, twenty six years later, I finally got to see that long-promised battle - and it lived up to any expectation I still held. I was sad to see the flick end, but happy to know it's not the end of the "Star Wars" universe entirely (I've read stuff about a TV show...).
"Sith" doesn't happen; "Sith" rules.
They can't just add people back in when they've been blocked either - there has to have been some resolution of the problem, and that has to come from the ISP, at least IMHO. A customer running a website will say anything (especially if they're a scum-of-the-earth-spammer-type customer) to get back online. AN ISP who lies knows their next block will be more permanent... So let's see: if the website operator is a good businessman, he'll say he's a good businessman and not a spammer. And MAPS will block him. If a website operator is a spammer, he'll say he's a good businessman and not a spammer. And MAPS will block him. The most efficient answer, then, is to block everyone. This is a poor justification for what they're doing. It amounts to blaming the victim for the conduct of another, and it shouldn't be tolerated. --G
Except, of course, that in the USA, EULAs are actually binding in most cases.
--G