The supreme court has continually ruled that the press enjoys no more protections, constitutionally, than the average citizen. In addition it has continually ruled that confidential sources are NOT constitutionally protected. The privledges that lawyers receive is one that comes from the common law, not constitutional law, and is quite different. Some states provide the press with exra RIGHTS, for example onto a crime scene. But constitutionally the press is not protected anymore than the average citizen.
Also, the argument that there is no right to privacy in the constitution is getting ridiculous. I hear this all the time, and yet there have been countless cases decided in courts over the past 30 years that recognize a very real implicit right to privacy. Most famous example.. see ROE v WADE..
The sooner people realize that the decisions their politicians make really do affect their lives in many different ways, and in the wallet as well, the sooner more people will be involved in politics.
When you have a republican form of government, the more participation the better off we all are. So bravo with this particular decision.
Color me stupid.. I didnt read the Ars article, only the post. That is a little better. However what the DoJ says is constitutional and what the courts have decided is constitutional is not really always the same.
From what I see that is outside the scope of the intended function of the law. A more contemporary example is child pornography. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, pornography that is neither obscene under Miller or produced by exploitation of children under the Ferber test was declared constitutionally protected. The law in question said any material that "appears to be" or "conveys the impression" it involves a minor was illegal. It was struck down as overbroad.
Other nations have stricter laws obviously. My comment was that when there is a question of constitutionality (and there will be), what side wins? The treaty and the other states law, or our constitution. Many instinctively say our constitution, but this is not set in stone. The US basically picks and chooses when to follow international conventions, as pointed out by the previous poster with the geneva convention, and I expect it to continue to do so. When the court gets involved we should have futher clarification.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
When two things that are said to be the supreme law of the land... they must be balanced by the courts. Explain, in your expansive legal expertise, why I am wrong.
Furthermore, IANAL, but constitutional law is of interest to me and I do have some basic knowledge in such since it happens to be a main part of my college degree.
I would like to point out that there is not that much of a case log to go on in this area, especially in regards to new communication technologies like the internet (yes the internet is "new" to the courts). And that the problem of treaties superceeding the US constitution is not new either, and there is much debate and not much actual case law one way or the other.
An international treaty is considered law here, but that does not mean it is immune from constitutional questions. This treaty must be balanced with the bill of rights, so there is obviously lots of litigation in the future if it is actually enforced...
I agree, but I believe its currently in litigation. The MLBs argument is that statistics have a much more important role in baseball than other sports, and that makes it different from the 1990's decision where the NBA sued motorola for sending out scores (in which scores were declared facts like you say).
But hey, when you fall from the nations past time to the nations dirty steroid infested bore fest you have to do something to get some $$$ back. Personally I would rather watch the WNBA than major league baseball.
If I can remember right, Abrams was not that involved in season 2 because he was doing Mission Impossible 3. So there are definately capable hands there if he plays a smaller role. Besides how can you mess up Lost? The story is already outlandish and fans cant get enough. The people that complain they dont get answers are either still watching hooked, or have stopped watching because they have no patience. They could tank it like X-Files and make half the season dumb comedy shows that are so out of place its stupid and bring in a thousand guest stars that are retarded, but I seriously doubt that will happen.
Heres to continued success of Lost... who cares about Star Trek anymore anyway?
If Im not mistaken.. the MLB has copyrighted their statistics and the NBA has claimed copyright over the actual events in a game and challenged commentators in court.
Its stupid, yes, but as a business you look for any revenue you can. Better safe than sorry, copyright everthing under the sun, and then sue everyone who looks at you funny. Who knows? If your lawyer is scary enough you might get some free $$$ in a settlement.
Dont you love the litigious society we live in? Myself, it makes me want to puke.
The case you are talking about is US v. American Library Association. The law was CIPA (Childrens Internet Protection Act). It was challenged under Congresses power of the purse on federally funded libraries. In the appelate court, the law was found to violate the first amendment. The Supreme Court, however, overturned that ruling and sided with the government in a split 5-4 decision. The government can restrict access at libraries with filters. Any adult that wishes the filter turned off only needs to ask a librarian. All pornographic material is restricted from minors through a filter.
Many libraries also have sections without filters that require librarian assistance to use (cubicles of sorts). Libraries can also get around the CIPA requirement by giving up their federal funding.
The laws that were struck down related to Reno v. ACLU, Ashcroft v. ACLU, and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. The Reno decision took out parts of the CDA (Communications Decency Act) relating to obscentity because less intrusive methods were available. In Ashcroft v. ACLU involved COPA and the Childrens Online Protection Act and was struck down because of violations of free speech. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition involved CPPA (Child Pornography Prevention Act) and basically prohibited materials that were not obscene under Miller or Ferber, and therefore the statute was unconstitutional.
I have millions of venture capital for you my friend. Please give me your bank account number and I will deposit my funds which are stuck in Nigeria at the moment.
I dont know what I fear more... the increasingly easy way any (evil) corporation can compile all my communications or the idea that the government can. I think its pretty clear that as technology gets more advanced, so do privacy concerns.
I think the most frightening part is that when I talk to my more conservative family members and most people who only casually know about these issues or politics, they see NOTHING wrong with everyone and their brother recording all the information they can on them and their family/friends. Their reasoning.. I have nothing to hide, why should I care? It is catching the "evil dooers".
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
This is another reason why we need reform in litigation, especially in a litigation prone society such as the US. Loser pays attorney fees for the winner, problem solved.
Yes, I am aware there are problems with this also (loser can't pay, etc). But it is definately a start.
I can't even ponder how much it would have messed me up if I had access to this much porn as a kid....
Let's just say that your life is empty and you are hopelessly addicted to porn with no real contact with the opposite sex.
Oh wait, thats not really different from the average slashdotter.
Re:Regarding the attraction of this species
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 1
Obviously this is an area of uncertainty in all the fields it involves. While the genetics of it involve evoloving traits that are "attractive", attracting is not coded entirely within our DNA. Its not as if a synthetic man could be made tomorrow somehow as an adult with no experiences and be automatically attracted to females.
There is a large social function here, I believe, where social animals modify and reinforce the traits that are attractive, and thus are taught it through social means.
On the flip side... in the animal kingdom there are dumb animals mating all the time that are not considered "social".
So, short anser... maybe.
Long answer... I will give you 5 bucks to see the freaks mate!
AMD has been doing just what you are saying for years. They *have* had the best CPUs for years now. If the playing field were even, AMD would already be in a position where this lawsuite would not even make sense.
The playing field is *far* from even. Intel had such dominance for so long, and cuts deals to specifically hamper AMD that this lawsuite is needed.
I dont see any stagnation in their drive for innovation. What they are doing is making sure their efforts are not wasted on a marketplace in which Intel has created barriers all over the place to stop AMD market penetration. Why would you continue to innovate just to sell chips in a market where you can never hope to compete with an Intel that violates anti-Trust and keeps you from competing in the marketplaces that you need.
Competition breeds excellence when companies compete by improving their products and lowering prices.
What we see now is a different kind of competition that does not help consumers. It involves lawyers, politicians, and throwing your weight around for market position (by mergers or buyouts, etc) to improve profits.
Big suprrise, but the industry most guilty of this kind of "competition" is the telcos and cable companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the argument that there is no right to privacy in the constitution is getting ridiculous. I hear this all the time, and yet there have been countless cases decided in courts over the past 30 years that recognize a very real implicit right to privacy. Most famous example .. see ROE v WADE ..
Wow, no sooner than its posted on slashdot, the database connections fail as it crumbles under the load of nerds drooling for "user created" porn.
When you have a republican form of government, the more participation the better off we all are. So bravo with this particular decision.
Someone has read http://www.free-culture.cc/ the book by Lawrence Lessig?
But good point, thanks.
Other nations have stricter laws obviously. My comment was that when there is a question of constitutionality (and there will be), what side wins? The treaty and the other states law, or our constitution. Many instinctively say our constitution, but this is not set in stone. The US basically picks and chooses when to follow international conventions, as pointed out by the previous poster with the geneva convention, and I expect it to continue to do so. When the court gets involved we should have futher clarification.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
When two things that are said to be the supreme law of the land ... they must be balanced by the courts. Explain, in your expansive legal expertise, why I am wrong.
Furthermore, IANAL, but constitutional law is of interest to me and I do have some basic knowledge in such since it happens to be a main part of my college degree.
I would like to point out that there is not that much of a case log to go on in this area, especially in regards to new communication technologies like the internet (yes the internet is "new" to the courts). And that the problem of treaties superceeding the US constitution is not new either, and there is much debate and not much actual case law one way or the other.
An international treaty is considered law here, but that does not mean it is immune from constitutional questions. This treaty must be balanced with the bill of rights, so there is obviously lots of litigation in the future if it is actually enforced ...
But hey, when you fall from the nations past time to the nations dirty steroid infested bore fest you have to do something to get some $$$ back. Personally I would rather watch the WNBA than major league baseball.
Heres to continued success of Lost ... who cares about Star Trek anymore anyway?
Its stupid, yes, but as a business you look for any revenue you can. Better safe than sorry, copyright everthing under the sun, and then sue everyone who looks at you funny. Who knows? If your lawyer is scary enough you might get some free $$$ in a settlement.
Dont you love the litigious society we live in? Myself, it makes me want to puke.
How long before I can upgrade my internet tubes to guinea pigs?
Many libraries also have sections without filters that require librarian assistance to use (cubicles of sorts). Libraries can also get around the CIPA requirement by giving up their federal funding.
The laws that were struck down related to Reno v. ACLU, Ashcroft v. ACLU, and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. The Reno decision took out parts of the CDA (Communications Decency Act) relating to obscentity because less intrusive methods were available. In Ashcroft v. ACLU involved COPA and the Childrens Online Protection Act and was struck down because of violations of free speech. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition involved CPPA (Child Pornography Prevention Act) and basically prohibited materials that were not obscene under Miller or Ferber, and therefore the statute was unconstitutional.
I have millions of venture capital for you my friend. Please give me your bank account number and I will deposit my funds which are stuck in Nigeria at the moment.
Sony is japanese. They have already been defeated and pacified into our capitalist brothers.
I think the most frightening part is that when I talk to my more conservative family members and most people who only casually know about these issues or politics, they see NOTHING wrong with everyone and their brother recording all the information they can on them and their family/friends. Their reasoning .. I have nothing to hide, why should I care? It is catching the "evil dooers".
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Yes, I am aware there are problems with this also (loser can't pay, etc). But it is definately a start.
I certainly didnt see this coming!
Let's just say that your life is empty and you are hopelessly addicted to porn with no real contact with the opposite sex.
Oh wait, thats not really different from the average slashdotter.
There is a large social function here, I believe, where social animals modify and reinforce the traits that are attractive, and thus are taught it through social means.
On the flip side ... in the animal kingdom there are dumb animals mating all the time that are not considered "social".
So, short anser ... maybe.
Long answer ... I will give you 5 bucks to see the freaks mate!
The playing field is *far* from even. Intel had such dominance for so long, and cuts deals to specifically hamper AMD that this lawsuite is needed.
I dont see any stagnation in their drive for innovation. What they are doing is making sure their efforts are not wasted on a marketplace in which Intel has created barriers all over the place to stop AMD market penetration. Why would you continue to innovate just to sell chips in a market where you can never hope to compete with an Intel that violates anti-Trust and keeps you from competing in the marketplaces that you need.
Forget having sex with a pixilated hooker in GTA. In Oblivion you get to kill random women to see them naked.
I can't wait for Hillary and the anti-game kill squad to get wind of this. Oh the humanity. ROFL!
Yes Im serious, and no, I dont think it will replace my "pen-is mightier".
What we see now is a different kind of competition that does not help consumers. It involves lawyers, politicians, and throwing your weight around for market position (by mergers or buyouts, etc) to improve profits.
Big suprrise, but the industry most guilty of this kind of "competition" is the telcos and cable companies.
Good idea, Comrade.