I think the Declaration of Independence strongly hinted that the founding fathers were aware government is an endless cycle of foundation -> golden age -> decline -> dark age. That whole bit about "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it"
being inconvenienced in the process of exercising a right is not, by any relevant standard, a violation of that right when there is a legitimate reason for the inconvenience.
What an apropos word. Legitimate shares the same root as Legislate. Therefore, you are saying "inconvenience while exercising a right is okay as long as the government says it's okay by passing law", which is a horrifying statement.
You cannot make a legislator a criminal just by the course of their official duties. In fact, that's in the Constitution, Art I, Sec 6.
In that case, I amend my idea to require this prerequisite amendment, which I did not know existed.
It is not the legislature's job to determine whether laws are constitutional. It is the legislature's job to pass laws that they feel will benefit the state.
It's every person's job as a human being to see that rights are not violated for anyone's benefit.
In many cases, there is no way of knowing if a law is constitutional until SCOTUS rules on it.
While I'm not versed enough to know cases like involving matters like this bill, take the "ban minors from purchasing Mature-rated video games" bills that have been repeatedly passed and struck down by state supreme courts over the last year. Quite analogous.
You essentially want to make it illegal to have a difference in opinion. Ridiculous.
That's a very broad definition of opinion. Approving an unconstitutional bill is not speech, it is an act. The same way a police officer can't (probably) be kicked off the force because he beleives all minorities are criminals, but certainly will if he goes Rodney King on a suspect.
When they're designing intentional hurdles in the law to make sure the right cannot be exercised in practical use, then yes, it is a violation. Just because the right to the internet is not as necessary as others doesn't mean it should be ignored.
This is just like allowing protests at Big Events, provided the organizers go through a lengthy application process that has little chance of being approved.
How can this applies to private colleges? (no community college costs that much). The summary specifically mentioned libraries, and I assume by "schools" it meant K-12.
So, you get a half-hour slot at a library, and immediately go to the front desk to ask for permission to use myspace. The library informs you that she will ask IT to turn off the block flag during your session, but because they are currently busy is never happens. In fact, you end up never getting around to shopping on Amazon every trip to the library that week because of the same problem.
and if a parent wishes for a child to be allowed access, they may request access and transfer it to the child.
From what I understand of the bill, that won't be allowed.
I'm a big fan of making laws that get overtuned for being unconstitutional a criminal offense. After all, they tried to punish people for something that wasn't illegal in the first place. Therefore, they did something illegal.
Just to elaborate, if I'm playing a fantasy MMO, groups are all smaller. And even if the plot does have rigidly segmented races, they do not carry over into the game and races are instead chosen based on their base stats/abilities.
Fantasy allows much more fame and renown on an individual level. Sure, there's guilds, but you can still be known as "THE elf assassin" on the server. Science fiction just brings up an image of "Stormtrooper 1138 ready, sir..."
I wouldn't use that word over the pond. They have a habit of stoning and firebombing the house of people associated with that suffix, even paediatricians.
The above article summary does not cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE) every single fact stated in a resource outside of Wikipedia and therefore is not verifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VERIFIABILITY).
I have no choice but to file an Aricle-for-deletion entry with the Slashdot police.
However, assistant commerce secretary John Kneuer, the US official in charge of such matters, also made clear that the US was still determined to keep control of the net's root zone file
Whoa, let's not get crazy here. Now, I like firefox as much as the next reasonably intelligent computer user. But it's got a memory footprint like the goddamned Galactus. It is literally the beast that cannot be fed. Firefox operates like a beowulf cluster dividing by zero simultaneously.
Also, the concern about health effects may seem silly, but there have been plenty of cases where things that were relatively harmless for adults turn out to have adverse effects on still-developing children.
Like what? Electromagnetic fields? Those have pretty much been proven okay in the last 100 years.
Is India still like Indiana Jones, where they'd flee in superstitious terror from the "sorcery" of electronic tools?
Slashdot Mirror
A much better point than my own. This deserves the +5.
I'm sad now :(
in fact you'd be a hazard on the road, going that slowly and congesting traffic.
/ IdeaFlow.woa/wa/showAMovie?movieID=978
Your hypothesis has already been proven, good sir:
http://www.campusmoviefest.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects
In the words of the great sage Lewis Black, "I would hope that would be... the dealbreaker"
I think the Declaration of Independence strongly hinted that the founding fathers were aware government is an endless cycle of foundation -> golden age -> decline -> dark age. That whole bit about "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it"
Sounds goofy.
is there something special about "literally" which makes it an excusable candidate?
Sure, popular use. (I'm sure ascribe, with the suffix it has, was likely first used to indicate written documentation. As you can see, it's evolved.)
being inconvenienced in the process of exercising a right is not, by any relevant standard, a violation of that right when there is a legitimate reason for the inconvenience.
What an apropos word. Legitimate shares the same root as Legislate. Therefore, you are saying "inconvenience while exercising a right is okay as long as the government says it's okay by passing law", which is a horrifying statement.
You cannot make a legislator a criminal just by the course of their official duties. In fact, that's in the Constitution, Art I, Sec 6.
In that case, I amend my idea to require this prerequisite amendment, which I did not know existed.
It is not the legislature's job to determine whether laws are constitutional. It is the legislature's job to pass laws that they feel will benefit the state.
It's every person's job as a human being to see that rights are not violated for anyone's benefit.
In many cases, there is no way of knowing if a law is constitutional until SCOTUS rules on it.
While I'm not versed enough to know cases like involving matters like this bill, take the "ban minors from purchasing Mature-rated video games" bills that have been repeatedly passed and struck down by state supreme courts over the last year. Quite analogous.
You essentially want to make it illegal to have a difference in opinion. Ridiculous.
That's a very broad definition of opinion. Approving an unconstitutional bill is not speech, it is an act. The same way a police officer can't (probably) be kicked off the force because he beleives all minorities are criminals, but certainly will if he goes Rodney King on a suspect.
It's called a public resource for a reason. That means every member of the public has access to it however they wish within bounds of the law.
(of course, the problem here is that the law is clearly Wrong)
Because "literally" is a heckuva lot easier to type than "Although what follows is unlikely, it is exactly what I mean without metaphor"
When they're designing intentional hurdles in the law to make sure the right cannot be exercised in practical use, then yes, it is a violation. Just because the right to the internet is not as necessary as others doesn't mean it should be ignored.
This is just like allowing protests at Big Events, provided the organizers go through a lengthy application process that has little chance of being approved.
How can this applies to private colleges? (no community college costs that much). The summary specifically mentioned libraries, and I assume by "schools" it meant K-12.
it will not affect teh rights of any adult
So, you get a half-hour slot at a library, and immediately go to the front desk to ask for permission to use myspace. The library informs you that she will ask IT to turn off the block flag during your session, but because they are currently busy is never happens. In fact, you end up never getting around to shopping on Amazon every trip to the library that week because of the same problem.
and if a parent wishes for a child to be allowed access, they may request access and transfer it to the child.
From what I understand of the bill, that won't be allowed.
I'm a big fan of making laws that get overtuned for being unconstitutional a criminal offense. After all, they tried to punish people for something that wasn't illegal in the first place. Therefore, they did something illegal.
Rats, you got my idea first :)
Just to elaborate, if I'm playing a fantasy MMO, groups are all smaller. And even if the plot does have rigidly segmented races, they do not carry over into the game and races are instead chosen based on their base stats/abilities.
Fantasy allows much more fame and renown on an individual level. Sure, there's guilds, but you can still be known as "THE elf assassin" on the server. Science fiction just brings up an image of "Stormtrooper 1138 ready, sir..."
Pedants take note
I wouldn't use that word over the pond. They have a habit of stoning and firebombing the house of people associated with that suffix, even paediatricians.
"Look at this jungle. Look at those vines, the way they twine around the trees, swallowing everything. Nature's cruel, Staros."
-the thin red line, what a great movie
Japan was apparently ahead of Stephen King by a good 20 years.
Pacman == Patrick Danville? Brilliant, I tell ya!
The above article summary does not cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE) every single fact stated in a resource outside of Wikipedia and therefore is not verifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VERIFIABILITY).
I have no choice but to file an Aricle-for-deletion entry with the Slashdot police.
Even the original article is contradictory:
However, assistant commerce secretary John Kneuer, the US official in charge of such matters, also made clear that the US was still determined to keep control of the net's root zone file
Is this a time paradox?
Whoa, let's not get crazy here. Now, I like firefox as much as the next reasonably intelligent computer user. But it's got a memory footprint like the goddamned Galactus. It is literally the beast that cannot be fed. Firefox operates like a beowulf cluster dividing by zero simultaneously.
//has seen it easily use u[ 1.5gb+ of ram before.
"Pushed?"
What is this thing, fucking heroin?
It's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke, son
Also, the concern about health effects may seem silly, but there have been plenty of cases where things that were relatively harmless for adults turn out to have adverse effects on still-developing children.
Like what? Electromagnetic fields? Those have pretty much been proven okay in the last 100 years.
Is India still like Indiana Jones, where they'd flee in superstitious terror from the "sorcery" of electronic tools?