In neither of those situations are you arrested for what you say.
You are arrested for what you do. Note that you conveniently mention that there's no fire in that crowded theatre. What if there is? Is it still illegal to speak up? Your words are independent from your actions.
If I order a hit, that can be well documented, and evidence can be obtained that traces the hit back to me through a chain of command or financial records. No need for my own testimony there. My testimony will only muck up the opportunity to convict me. You think these criminals don't KNOW they're being watched? They deliberately speak in ways that would mislead people, using forms of elaborate encryption on their own speech.
In the case of inciting a riot, your mannerisms matter more than your words. You're always free to speak up. That's why you can't prevent someone from starting a riot, you can only punish afterwards, and the punishment is always weighed by the actual damage done.
"That's why the man in blue says: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.""
Yes, and this has been used far too often to falsely incriminate those who are actually innocent. If you can't in any way comprehend that people can be wrong about their own guilt, you need to understand that first.
Free speech IS absolute, even though the government doesn't approve of it.
You'll regret not having those rights when you die in a fire in a crowded theater because it's illegal to speak up.
And your speech being used against you in the court is completely at the decision of the Judge. Appeal on the grounds that your rights were violated and he might come to his senses. You know, like how every single confession obtained without a lawyer present is dismissed along with any testimony obtained, as soon as the defense attorney shows up.
It's the modern day way of saying "Come and Take it." I consider it to be just as "low" as using politically correct bullshit to say the exact same thing.
In other words, it's okay to say anything as long as you approve of it.
Bullshit. The first and fifth amendments to the United states constitution both apply here. 1. I can say whatever the fuck I want, without worrying about the consequences of doing so, because, damnit, it's absolutely necessary to preserve my other rights.
5. My words cannot be used against me in any court of law. If you intend to convict me of a crime, you need goddamn evidence. Testimony of any kind is UNRELIABLE no matter what. To ask someone to testify against themselves KNOWING: a) they were not sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them god when they were bragging to their friends about the fish they caught or the derring-do's they've done or the women they've slept with. b) I have a constitutional right to lie when I am out and about and having fun. c) I may be wrong. d) My attorney has advised me to admit to a crime I did not commit and hope for a plea bargain because 100% of all of the people of my skin tone and background and neighborhood who are charged with a crime are convicted. e) You cannot even guarantee with 100% certainty that I am telling the truth if you have me in a large, claustrophobia-inducing machine that SCANS MY BRAIN.
Does it shock you to find out that nearly every single person convicted based on a confession while their attorney was present may in fact be innocent? It's true (and proven) in over 45% of the cases.
The problem is simple: There is no way for this person to prove their innocence, and they are being judged by the people who will render a verdict based on the crime dramas they watch. They are motivated to confess because their life would be better off behind bars and they would not be such a huge financial burden to their families.
As soon as a person's own testimony of any kind is used against them, their rights have been violated, for no other reason than that "somebody has to pay."
You really need to stop assuming that these people are guilty, nothing good comes from that.
So no. you should not be held accountable for what you say. Every single fucking word that comes out of your mouth is free. And it should stay that way. It should never be used as evidence in any way, shape or form, ever.
In Russia, if your husband speaks out against the government, he disappears.
In USA, if your husband speaks out against the government/fails to worship bush, the White House deliberately outs you as a CIA agent with the intention of getting you killed in action.
So it's not quite as severe. yet. Russia is slightly less evil than it used to be. The United states in 8 years went from being the most free country in the world to the most hypocritical, rounding up suspected terrorists and sending them to rape and torture camps in other countries.
You seriously expect me to be optimistic about that just because it's not as bad now as it will be in the future? You really have a nice way of suger-coating the shit they're shoveling out.
Oh, something like that. All of my computer programs are the same "Hello World" application I did for my first project in college. I just rewrite the compiler from scratch to create new programs from it.
"What he's suggesting is a list of features/wants for a hypothetical competitor to the Kindle."
"Re:Pricing is the big hurdle
Here's what it'll take for me:
+ Reader has to be under $100. + Books have to be half the price of print books or lower. + No bullshit DRM. I better be able to back the content up, copy it to my ipod, save it on my hard drive. Whatever. + I better be able to resell it, just like I can resell a used book. Otherwise, all of this is just a run-around way for the publishing industry to attacked the used book trade, which they hate more than almost anything else on earth (including their loathing of public libraries)."
Entire post quoted. It does not state that this is in reference to the potential competitors in this post. It was not assumed to be a post about potential competition to the referenced item. It was assumed to be in reference to Amazon's device.
And I politely informed him that Amazon supports DRM. There is likely no way in hell that Amazon will relinquish "control" of any kind. they have clearly sided with the wrong economic counsel. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that control over the market is overrated and you can make much more money by being cooperative with your customers, over time. And of course, you DO intend to be in business for longer than opening day, right?
That's precisely the mistake I was saying people might make.
It turns out that the reason head injuries went up is SOLELY due to the fact that deaths due to sniper shots to the head went down significantly. Helmets weren't designed to make your head safe - and the soldiers knew it. It was like putting a band-aid on a severed arm, they thought. And they were right. It didn't spare them any pain - but miraculously, it saved them from death. Instead of being a headless bloody mass, they became a nonmoving, wounded body. And that was the key. So long as you stopped moving and looked dead enough, you were no longer a target.
It's probably being used casually, as in "it would be cheaper and easier to purchase a new computer than to try and get this p.o.s. working again."
Perhaps the person who originally referred to it as a brick pays their friendly local teenage geek several hundred dollars to fix things. Perhaps they need the bootcamp thing to make it work. who knows?
As for me, I always use the term "boat anchor." It's a bit more appropriate in the case of a PC tower/monitor.
"If you're using death as the only symptom of something dangerous..."
Also watch out for the reverse.
In world war 2, helmets were issued to all soldiers serving.
As a direct result, the number of head injuries reported in combat increased stratospherically.
if you're a critical thinker, you can easily understand why, but many might be duped by those statistics into believing that helmets cause head injuries.
Graphics are also somewhat important. I remember playing old games like ultima 7 and thinking to myself... What is that thing supposed to be? as I looked at an item in my inventory that was composed of only a few pixels.
Happens to this very day, too. sometimes you wonder what in the world you just looted off a mob in Wow, and think "why am I looting a slushy pancreas?"
Which is funny because the wikipedia article on the Claymore mine itself states that the explosive charge on the device was measured specifically to maximize the range at which the explosive charge contains lethal force.
I'd call that a lethal weapon myself. I would also not list a chainsaw, broadsword, or katana as a nonlethal weapon if it were intended to be used to hack off limbs so that the target would bleed to death - exactly what those claymore mines do.
Slashdot Mirror
Never underestimate the power of the dork side.
Gnomes, you mean.
Goblin Engineering fails less often.
Good god, man. You know you shouldn't make grey goo with lead paint.
Think of the children!
In neither of those situations are you arrested for what you say.
You are arrested for what you do.
Note that you conveniently mention that there's no fire in that crowded theatre. What if there is? Is it still illegal to speak up? Your words are independent from your actions.
If I order a hit, that can be well documented, and evidence can be obtained that traces the hit back to me through a chain of command or financial records. No need for my own testimony there. My testimony will only muck up the opportunity to convict me. You think these criminals don't KNOW they're being watched? They deliberately speak in ways that would mislead people, using forms of elaborate encryption on their own speech.
In the case of inciting a riot, your mannerisms matter more than your words. You're always free to speak up. That's why you can't prevent someone from starting a riot, you can only punish afterwards, and the punishment is always weighed by the actual damage done.
"That's why the man in blue says: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.""
Yes, and this has been used far too often to falsely incriminate those who are actually innocent. If you can't in any way comprehend that people can be wrong about their own guilt, you need to understand that first.
Looks like they weren't prepared for slashdot after all.
Is there a mirror to be found?
Free speech IS absolute, even though the government doesn't approve of it.
You'll regret not having those rights when you die in a fire in a crowded theater because it's illegal to speak up.
And your speech being used against you in the court is completely at the decision of the Judge. Appeal on the grounds that your rights were violated and he might come to his senses. You know, like how every single confession obtained without a lawyer present is dismissed along with any testimony obtained, as soon as the defense attorney shows up.
It's the modern day way of saying "Come and Take it."
I consider it to be just as "low" as using politically correct bullshit to say the exact same thing.
In other words, it's okay to say anything as long as you approve of it.
Bullshit.
The first and fifth amendments to the United states constitution both apply here.
1. I can say whatever the fuck I want, without worrying about the consequences of doing so, because, damnit, it's absolutely necessary to preserve my other rights.
5. My words cannot be used against me in any court of law. If you intend to convict me of a crime, you need goddamn evidence. Testimony of any kind is UNRELIABLE no matter what. To ask someone to testify against themselves KNOWING:
a) they were not sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them god when they were bragging to their friends about the fish they caught or the derring-do's they've done or the women they've slept with.
b) I have a constitutional right to lie when I am out and about and having fun.
c) I may be wrong.
d) My attorney has advised me to admit to a crime I did not commit and hope for a plea bargain because 100% of all of the people of my skin tone and background and neighborhood who are charged with a crime are convicted.
e) You cannot even guarantee with 100% certainty that I am telling the truth if you have me in a large, claustrophobia-inducing machine that SCANS MY BRAIN.
Does it shock you to find out that nearly every single person convicted based on a confession while their attorney was present may in fact be innocent? It's true (and proven) in over 45% of the cases.
The problem is simple:
There is no way for this person to prove their innocence, and they are being judged by the people who will render a verdict based on the crime dramas they watch.
They are motivated to confess because their life would be better off behind bars and they would not be such a huge financial burden to their families.
As soon as a person's own testimony of any kind is used against them, their rights have been violated, for no other reason than that "somebody has to pay."
You really need to stop assuming that these people are guilty, nothing good comes from that.
So no. you should not be held accountable for what you say. Every single fucking word that comes out of your mouth is free. And it should stay that way. It should never be used as evidence in any way, shape or form, ever.
In Russia, if your husband speaks out against the government, he disappears.
In USA, if your husband speaks out against the government/fails to worship bush, the White House deliberately outs you as a CIA agent with the intention of getting you killed in action.
So it's not quite as severe. yet.
Russia is slightly less evil than it used to be.
The United states in 8 years went from being the most free country in the world to the most hypocritical, rounding up suspected terrorists and sending them to rape and torture camps in other countries.
You seriously expect me to be optimistic about that just because it's not as bad now as it will be in the future?
You really have a nice way of suger-coating the shit they're shoveling out.
Only the most monumentally stupid college students would voluntarily participate in any study like this, it's a waste of time.
It'll still be more free than it would be here.
At first, I was thinking "Wow, it would be cruel if that was all you got for christmas..."
But now that I think about it, this would make a great gift for the whole family, and would be rather cheap. Thanks for the suggestion!
Oh, something like that.
All of my computer programs are the same "Hello World" application I did for my first project in college. I just rewrite the compiler from scratch to create new programs from it.
You insensitive clod.
"What he's suggesting is a list of features/wants for a hypothetical competitor to the Kindle."
"Re:Pricing is the big hurdle
Here's what it'll take for me:
+ Reader has to be under $100.
+ Books have to be half the price of print books or lower.
+ No bullshit DRM. I better be able to back the content up, copy it to my ipod, save it on my hard drive. Whatever.
+ I better be able to resell it, just like I can resell a used book. Otherwise, all of this is just a run-around way for the publishing industry to attacked the used book trade, which they hate more than almost anything else on earth (including their loathing of public libraries)."
Entire post quoted. It does not state that this is in reference to the potential competitors in this post.
It was not assumed to be a post about potential competition to the referenced item. It was assumed to be in reference to Amazon's device.
And I politely informed him that Amazon supports DRM. There is likely no way in hell that Amazon will relinquish "control" of any kind. they have clearly sided with the wrong economic counsel. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that control over the market is overrated and you can make much more money by being cooperative with your customers, over time. And of course, you DO intend to be in business for longer than opening day, right?
News is opinion.
I'll say.
Whoever posted this article should be banned.
*runs away*
"No bullshit DRM."
You're out of luck. It's one of its features.
That's precisely the mistake I was saying people might make.
It turns out that the reason head injuries went up is SOLELY due to the fact that deaths due to sniper shots to the head went down significantly. Helmets weren't designed to make your head safe - and the soldiers knew it. It was like putting a band-aid on a severed arm, they thought. And they were right. It didn't spare them any pain - but miraculously, it saved them from death. Instead of being a headless bloody mass, they became a nonmoving, wounded body. And that was the key. So long as you stopped moving and looked dead enough, you were no longer a target.
If the guy replacing him had a clue, he wouldn't be replacing him.
It's probably being used casually, as in "it would be cheaper and easier to purchase a new computer than to try and get this p.o.s. working again."
Perhaps the person who originally referred to it as a brick pays their friendly local teenage geek several hundred dollars to fix things. Perhaps they need the bootcamp thing to make it work. who knows?
As for me, I always use the term "boat anchor." It's a bit more appropriate in the case of a PC tower/monitor.
"If you're using death as the only symptom of something dangerous..."
Also watch out for the reverse.
In world war 2, helmets were issued to all soldiers serving.
As a direct result, the number of head injuries reported in combat increased stratospherically.
if you're a critical thinker, you can easily understand why, but many might be duped by those statistics into believing that helmets cause head injuries.
Graphics are also somewhat important. I remember playing old games like ultima 7 and thinking to myself... What is that thing supposed to be? as I looked at an item in my inventory that was composed of only a few pixels.
Happens to this very day, too. sometimes you wonder what in the world you just looted off a mob in Wow, and think "why am I looting a slushy pancreas?"
They should give that effect some sort of catchy name.
If the creationists call it satire and successfully argue their case, it would be a step in the right direction for other cases.
And they'd be labeled blasphemers. Win win.
Which is funny because the wikipedia article on the Claymore mine itself states that the explosive charge on the device was measured specifically to maximize the range at which the explosive charge contains lethal force.
I'd call that a lethal weapon myself. I would also not list a chainsaw, broadsword, or katana as a nonlethal weapon if it were intended to be used to hack off limbs so that the target would bleed to death - exactly what those claymore mines do.