Yeah. Those scenarios would be very bad. I just don't take this particular threat as being likely to amount to anything more than a "one bunch of assholes tried it" footnote in the history of the web. It's a stupid and crooked thing for ESPN to do, I just don't think it heralds the impending and inevitable doom of the free web.
But I forgot that I was on slashdot, where people you agree with will still attack you for not being pissed off enough.
Hey, I said it still sucks for exactly those reasons.
I think the reason I'm less troubled than I initially was is that I just don't think this will come close to taking off as a business model, and I have a hard time getting too worked up about an evil scheme that seems bound to fail. ISPs and content providers each want to squeeze protection money from the other one. Ultimately, I think these two sets of evil bastards will keep one another in check.
You know, my instinctive reaction was horror, anger, and disgust, but after thinking about it for few minutes, I realize this isn't that terrible. There are plenty of sites on the internet that only offer their content to paid subscribers. This one just happens to be subscribing large groups by having their ISP pay.
It does still suck, because ultimately any ISP that pays for this license is going to pass the cost on to their customers, including those that don't care about ESPN. While many are trying to force cable TV to go to ala carte pricing, here's a company trying to move the internet to a "package deal" system.
Ultimately, I think I would be okay with this if individual users could still subscribe to the site if their ISP hasn't, and if everyone had more than 2 choices of ISP. The first condition could probably be met, but the second is a tough one.
So yeah, I'm against this. But I'm downgrading my outrage from horror/anger/disgust to trepidation/irritation/distaste.
Nevada is only less-dense population-wise when you are looking at everything from a statewide level. Nevada is essentially one very densely populated urban area, surrounded by abandoned desert. I'm sure Utah's population isn't evenly spread out either, but this sort of crime-per capita statistic is really only valuable if you break it down by county or township.
No, being deliberately insulting is a troll, which is why you were moderated that way. I pointed out that his argument was not valid, since some principles stated in the Declaration of Independence have nothing to do with what rights the Constitution grants, and pointed out that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to rule on the issue, which is has.
I was backing up your point, for crying out loud. But you're comment was still trollish. I will now stop feeding you.
I know where it's from people. I never said it was from the Constitution.
Indeed you did not, directly, nor did I say that you did. But the Troll who replied to you seemed to think it was the Constitution, as he was referencing things that are laid down therein.
Can they vote? Can they drink alcohol? Can they run for president, or other major offices of state? Then may I humbly beseech you to shut the fuck verily up and actually read the document you're quoting?
And in your response to him you continue to talk of the Constitution.
Even if you could prove that the constitution sets children apart
The constituion is right, the implementation is wrong. If you can find where the constitution contradicts itself, then you've got a point
I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't know what you were quoting. I was just trying to make it clear to all, since you did not, that it wasn't the Constitution you quoted, and point out to you that quoting the Declaration doesn't support your contention about who has Constitutional rights.
Yes, well by that criteria, the Executive is the only branch with any power at all. Congress certainly can't give orders to the military, or force the U.S. Attorneys Office to prosecute someone.
In any case, I was specifically addressing the assertion that in a Jeffersonian Democracy, no branch can do something that the others cannot undo. I assumed it went without saying that I was referring to the powers those branches have as laid down by the constitution, not weighing in on the overall question of whether the branches are co-equal.
In your example, the president ignored the Court's decision, but he did not, in a constitutional checks and balances sense, undo it. All it proves to me is that we are not living in a Jeffersonian Democracy.
Just for the record, the document you are arguing about isn't the Constitution. The line you quoted is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.
While I agree with you (mostly) regarding the rights of minors, the created-equal-pursuit-of-happiness bit is just an inspirational line from a "Fuck you" letter to King George, and has no bearing on actual constitutional law. In fact, the constitution (as written) specifically states that black people count as 3/5ths of a person. Not very true to the ideals put forth in the Declaration.
Fortunately, the Constitution has been amended to bring it closer to that ideal, but as is stands, right or wrong, the Supreme Court (to which the Constitution gives all authority to interpret the Constitution) has ruled that minors don't have full rights.
Yes, there is. The Supreme Court can rule that an act passed by Congress and signed by the President is unconstitutional, and strike it down.
You may be thinking that congress can then amend the constitution, but you would be wrong. Once an amendment to the constitution is passed by congress, it must still be ratified by the state legislatures of three quarters of the states in the union, and those state legislatures are not one of the three branches of our federal government.
For a civilization to be able to keep up that level of commitment for as long as it would take would be inconceivable. This isn't to say that it couldn't happen, but . . ..
That word -- I think it means what you do not think it means.
Me too. But then my first (grown-up, non-dish-washing) job was with them, so my brand loyalty may have to do with that kool-aid they were always handing out. . .
Not to mention, it is already 95 percent carbon dioxide, so I don't imagine adding more would help heat the place up. It is cold because it is further from the sun, and because the planet doesn't have enough gravity to support a thicker atmosphere.
Maybe if our terraforming efforts included a way of doubling the planet's mass we might have a go at it. There's lots of useless asteroids floating around, right?;)
As a matter of fact I do! Just yesterday I was chosen to receive a very handsome sum of money from a member of the Nigerian royal family, and barely an hour later, not one but seven gorgeous women sent me flirtatious messages on MySpace.
Your theories about what would happen if this had been Apple seem unfounded to me. Given the vastly larger number of people who would be affected if iPods simultaneously stopped working, I think you would be considerably MORE likely to see an angry response, followed by a class action lawsuit. Maybe even a violent revolution.
I'd kinda like to see it though, just because it would be a better use of the term "iPocalypse" that was coined for the activation/update issues when the iPhone 3G was released. Just as long as my own iPhone is not affected -- I friggin' NEED that thing, it's the third hemisphere of my brain.
Because it is currently 2008, instead of the 1970's, and the legal environment has changed. If today's laws had been in force when the IBM PC was cloned, it would never have been allowed.
Don't worry -- in the event that his ring is lost, the secret chamber behind the bookshelf in the study contains a handwritten journal, containing the account of the time his arch-nemesis attempted to steal the ring and ended up with the celtic ruins burned into the skin of his left hand, along with seven riddles that, when solved, reveal the nemesis's identity. His family need only to find the secret chamber by pulling on the tail of the bronze monkey statue (you can't miss it, the framed portrait of Napoleon hanging on the wall opposite is looking directly at it) and they will be set on an exciting quest to track down the dark stranger and recover the ruins by dusting for handprints on his cane.
Longer answer: It should be apparent that the double jeopardy clause is a U.S. legal rule, and only applies to trying them twice for the same crime in U.S. courts.
In truth, double jeopardy, very rarely offers any protection at all. You can be tried for a crime in a state court, for example, and be acquitted only to then be convicted in a federal court, or in a different state. You could be acquitted of one crime and then recharged with a different crime tied to the same actions, like if you're acquitted of murder, they might still convict you of manslaughter, or "conspiracy to commit murder," or assault with a deadly weapon -- or whatever, depending on the circumstances.
Double jeopardy is very narrow -- it protects a person from being tried twice on the exact same charges, for the exact same action, in the exact same jurisdiction. That's all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Those scenarios would be very bad. I just don't take this particular threat as being likely to amount to anything more than a "one bunch of assholes tried it" footnote in the history of the web. It's a stupid and crooked thing for ESPN to do, I just don't think it heralds the impending and inevitable doom of the free web.
But I forgot that I was on slashdot, where people you agree with will still attack you for not being pissed off enough.
No, I am not suggesting that is okay. I would think my post makes that clear if you read beyond the first paragraph.
Hey, I said it still sucks for exactly those reasons.
I think the reason I'm less troubled than I initially was is that I just don't think this will come close to taking off as a business model, and I have a hard time getting too worked up about an evil scheme that seems bound to fail. ISPs and content providers each want to squeeze protection money from the other one. Ultimately, I think these two sets of evil bastards will keep one another in check.
You know, my instinctive reaction was horror, anger, and disgust, but after thinking about it for few minutes, I realize this isn't that terrible. There are plenty of sites on the internet that only offer their content to paid subscribers. This one just happens to be subscribing large groups by having their ISP pay.
It does still suck, because ultimately any ISP that pays for this license is going to pass the cost on to their customers, including those that don't care about ESPN. While many are trying to force cable TV to go to ala carte pricing, here's a company trying to move the internet to a "package deal" system.
Ultimately, I think I would be okay with this if individual users could still subscribe to the site if their ISP hasn't, and if everyone had more than 2 choices of ISP. The first condition could probably be met, but the second is a tough one.
So yeah, I'm against this. But I'm downgrading my outrage from horror/anger/disgust to trepidation/irritation/distaste.
Wow. I had a lot of unnecessary hyphens in that post. I don't know what came over me. I'd like to apologize to any grammar Nazis who were offended.
Nevada is only less-dense population-wise when you are looking at everything from a statewide level. Nevada is essentially one very densely populated urban area, surrounded by abandoned desert. I'm sure Utah's population isn't evenly spread out either, but this sort of crime-per capita statistic is really only valuable if you break it down by county or township.
No, being deliberately insulting is a troll, which is why you were moderated that way. I pointed out that his argument was not valid, since some principles stated in the Declaration of Independence have nothing to do with what rights the Constitution grants, and pointed out that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to rule on the issue, which is has.
I was backing up your point, for crying out loud. But you're comment was still trollish. I will now stop feeding you.
I know where it's from people.
I never said it was from the Constitution.
Indeed you did not, directly, nor did I say that you did. But the Troll who replied to you seemed to think it was the Constitution, as he was referencing things that are laid down therein.
And in your response to him you continue to talk of the Constitution.
I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't know what you were quoting. I was just trying to make it clear to all, since you did not, that it wasn't the Constitution you quoted, and point out to you that quoting the Declaration doesn't support your contention about who has Constitutional rights.
Yes, well by that criteria, the Executive is the only branch with any power at all. Congress certainly can't give orders to the military, or force the U.S. Attorneys Office to prosecute someone.
In any case, I was specifically addressing the assertion that in a Jeffersonian Democracy, no branch can do something that the others cannot undo. I assumed it went without saying that I was referring to the powers those branches have as laid down by the constitution, not weighing in on the overall question of whether the branches are co-equal.
In your example, the president ignored the Court's decision, but he did not, in a constitutional checks and balances sense, undo it. All it proves to me is that we are not living in a Jeffersonian Democracy.
Just for the record, the document you are arguing about isn't the Constitution. The line you quoted is the beginning of the Declaration of Independence.
While I agree with you (mostly) regarding the rights of minors, the created-equal-pursuit-of-happiness bit is just an inspirational line from a "Fuck you" letter to King George, and has no bearing on actual constitutional law. In fact, the constitution (as written) specifically states that black people count as 3/5ths of a person. Not very true to the ideals put forth in the Declaration.
Fortunately, the Constitution has been amended to bring it closer to that ideal, but as is stands, right or wrong, the Supreme Court (to which the Constitution gives all authority to interpret the Constitution) has ruled that minors don't have full rights.
Yes, there is. The Supreme Court can rule that an act passed by Congress and signed by the President is unconstitutional, and strike it down.
You may be thinking that congress can then amend the constitution, but you would be wrong. Once an amendment to the constitution is passed by congress, it must still be ratified by the state legislatures of three quarters of the states in the union, and those state legislatures are not one of the three branches of our federal government.
For a civilization to be able to keep up that level of commitment for as long as it would take would be inconceivable. This isn't to say that it couldn't happen, but . . . .
That word -- I think it means what you do not think it means.
So, don't allow any sunlight into the cells either. Medieval Dungeons FTW!
Me too. But then my first (grown-up, non-dish-washing) job was with them, so my brand loyalty may have to do with that kool-aid they were always handing out. . .
Snails are not insects. I declare your "trifecta" to be a mere bifecta. Fail.
Not to mention, it is already 95 percent carbon dioxide, so I don't imagine adding more would help heat the place up. It is cold because it is further from the sun, and because the planet doesn't have enough gravity to support a thicker atmosphere.
Maybe if our terraforming efforts included a way of doubling the planet's mass we might have a go at it. There's lots of useless asteroids floating around, right? ;)
As a matter of fact I do! Just yesterday I was chosen to receive a very handsome sum of money from a member of the Nigerian royal family, and barely an hour later, not one but seven gorgeous women sent me flirtatious messages on MySpace.
I'm on a roll!
That's because sugar pills don't have any side-effects.
One base-pair does not a gene make.
If my toilet cant twitter then I'll stop using it.
Um. . . do you mean Twitter or the toilet?
Your theories about what would happen if this had been Apple seem unfounded to me. Given the vastly larger number of people who would be affected if iPods simultaneously stopped working, I think you would be considerably MORE likely to see an angry response, followed by a class action lawsuit. Maybe even a violent revolution.
I'd kinda like to see it though, just because it would be a better use of the term "iPocalypse" that was coined for the activation/update issues when the iPhone 3G was released. Just as long as my own iPhone is not affected -- I friggin' NEED that thing, it's the third hemisphere of my brain.
Conceptual sex? Is that what I'm having when I theorize about what sex might be like?
ANSWER:
Because it is currently 2008, instead of the 1970's, and the legal environment has changed. If today's laws had been in force when the IBM PC was cloned, it would never have been allowed.
Don't worry -- in the event that his ring is lost, the secret chamber behind the bookshelf in the study contains a handwritten journal, containing the account of the time his arch-nemesis attempted to steal the ring and ended up with the celtic ruins burned into the skin of his left hand, along with seven riddles that, when solved, reveal the nemesis's identity. His family need only to find the secret chamber by pulling on the tail of the bronze monkey statue (you can't miss it, the framed portrait of Napoleon hanging on the wall opposite is looking directly at it) and they will be set on an exciting quest to track down the dark stranger and recover the ruins by dusting for handprints on his cane.
Short answer, No.
Longer answer: It should be apparent that the double jeopardy clause is a U.S. legal rule, and only applies to trying them twice for the same crime in U.S. courts.
In truth, double jeopardy, very rarely offers any protection at all. You can be tried for a crime in a state court, for example, and be acquitted only to then be convicted in a federal court, or in a different state. You could be acquitted of one crime and then recharged with a different crime tied to the same actions, like if you're acquitted of murder, they might still convict you of manslaughter, or "conspiracy to commit murder," or assault with a deadly weapon -- or whatever, depending on the circumstances.
Double jeopardy is very narrow -- it protects a person from being tried twice on the exact same charges, for the exact same action, in the exact same jurisdiction. That's all.