Unless you hold that the people who wrote the original text were omniscient, and therefore knew all the future, someone must interpret the text in modern terms.
One thing you should have mind is that, no matter what your local neocon operative is telling you, the Courts haven't suddenly started interpreting the Constitution because Clinton nominated a few dozens "terrorist" judges. It has always been the role of the higher courts.
Just for me to understand your line of thought, please define the words "establishment", "religion", "prohibiting", "free", "exercise", "abridging", "freedom", "speech", "press", "right", "people", "peaceably", "assemble", "petition", "Government", "redress", "grievances". For extra cookies, define both the meaning the Framers wanted them to have and the necessary adaptations to modern day. Note that I am noting trying to be difficult here - but that's what the courts are for...
The speed limit must be set somewhere. Yes, going anything above it is reason to give you a ticket. If you don't like it or don't trust your instruments, nothing prevents you to compensate by driving as if the limit was 50 mph. Obviously there can be "tolerances", say 1% or 5%.
But it gets worse: your example talks about the average velocity, so we may well suppose you reached speeds far above the 60 mph limit (while driveing at 40 mph) for the rest of the time).
I think you are not a Creationist then. That almost requires the literal interpretation of a particular holy text (that's your Biblical Creationism").
Most creationists I meet would not consider you one of them. Actually they would probably consider your view worst than the "communist atheistic evolutionism", because you have a chance of being heard by their "herd".
What about a spammer who's trying to develop a blogging app in order to support the crack habit of a nearly-bankrupt orphanage residents? Would that be enough move your cold heart?
After sending a million spam messages to a million recipients using this system, the originating node receives a million challenges. Not DDOS per se, but it will almost always bring the spammer down as a (nice) side-effect.
Everything Microsoft did to date, from word processor to compilers to full operating systems, has only become usable (and in some cases, barely) in the third version. Why then would they expend their hard extorted monopoly money on a version 2 of anything?
First, he said he can (as in "is able to because either it is on network TV or he paid for the cable showing it") record the shows.
Second, at least this way someone gains: if he does not watch the shows, the benefit for the station/provider/advertisers is zero. If he downloads a file made elsewhere, that station/provider/advertiser combo benefits. The mean effect of people who paid for the content downloading it instead of watching directly is probably nil.
The continent is called "America" - those who live in it, all of it, are then "Americans". Simple. People born in Germany are both Germans and Europeans, as the Chinese are also Asians. This way, Brazilians and Colombians are as Americans as any former Texan Governor...
Oh, come on - you shouldn't call yourselves "North Americans" either - there are the Canadians and the Mexicans sharing the northern subcontinent with you. And, obviously, the people who live in South America does not call themselves by the continent name - it would be unpolite and unseemly. But then again, being "American" means you don't have to care about what other people think, right?
the term "American" has been adopted to mean "one of the United States of America."
You can adopt whatever you want. It does not automatically follow that people from other countries in the (North/Central/South) American continent have to follow, agree or refrain from finding you ridiculous...
This is the kind of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. You describe a fantastic money machine then spoils everything by saying "Personally, I'd set up in a small town, could get rent for $1000, a receptionist for $8/hr, and a paralegal for under $30k. A pure profit machine."
With this kind of profit, set up in a nice $5k office, pay $20/hr to the girl in the front desk, make the paralegals beg to work for you by paying them $60k-$100k. You'd still be making tons of money and everyone in the office would be happy...
All contries can and do impose restrictions on what you can buy and where. If you are an American citizen you can't legally buy anything from Cuba (or produced in Cuba, for that matter - even if you buy it from a third or fourth part), Syria, Iran etc. There are also import taxes to be paid on most products you can legally buy from other countries. I wouldn't be surprised of one or more of the recent laws regarding digital content had some disposition about buying music and DVDs elsewhere.
Your line of reasoning implies that a The New York Times journalist deserves more protection than a New York Post journalist. After all, the Times is serious journalism while the Post is a smelly mount of rumor, gossip and blood.
Apple has every right to sue the NDA breaker, but online journalism (regardless of its perceived quality) should afford the same degree of protection offered to its offline counterparts.
I can only begin to imagine the kind of mess we will be on by extending the full protection of law to every single person with access to the Internet and a taste fro writing, but then again I will love to see it unfold.
A blog can be many things to many people. Mary Doe diary about her cooking experiences is a blog. Alan Cox diary, which predated blogs by more than a decade, can be called a blog. I have already seem (but not agreeded with) people calling Slashdot and K5 blogs. And then you have news blogs, political blogs like Kos and many, many tech news blogs, some small one-hobbyst operations, some big and fairly well-funded sites.
A blogger can be anything from a suburban housewive to a serious journalist to many other things. Throw away all protections journalists enjoy just because there is no CNN or Fox behind someone is not only unfair, it is a way to kill this new form of journalism before it is even completely born. And remember we wouldn't be having this conversation if the bloggers in questions had published this information is a college newspaper, for instance. Because then the judge would have thrown Apple out of the room in a minute.
People should pay attention to what rabit Apple is trying to pull from the hat here. If you read the article, "In its court filings, Apple argued that neither the free speech protections of the United States Constitution nor the California Shield Law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources, applies to the Web sites. The company said such protections apply only to 'legitimate members of the press.'"
So basically Apple is saying bloggers are not "legitimate members of the press" and the judge (tentatively, meaning it is a preliminary ruling) agreed. If this holds water, the consequences can be huge. Some questions will need new answers: Who is a legitimate member of the press? What is a "news organisation"? If an online presence is not enough to caractherize such an organisation, what is? A paper? A radio?
This a fine new front in the "us against them" battle for the Internet.
1) This is not a Federal case 2) This is being tried in California 3) California has an specific law protecting journalists from this kind of thing, the Shield law: "California enacted a shield law in 1935 and, in 1980, incorporated it into the state constitution. The shield law protects a journalist from being held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose either unpublished information or the source of any information that was gathered for news purposes, whether the source is confidential or not. An exception can arise where a criminal defendant's federal constitutional right to a fair trial would be violated without a reporter's testimony."
I don't know if it aplies to this case, but the law exists.
The case is in California. I don't think New York State Consolidated Laws apply there. On the other hand, California has a Shield Law that provides persons connected with news organizations with an immunity from being held in contempt "for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for [public dissemination]... or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.", that may or may not apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you hold that the people who wrote the original text were omniscient, and therefore knew all the future, someone must interpret the text in modern terms.
One thing you should have mind is that, no matter what your local neocon operative is telling you, the Courts haven't suddenly started interpreting the Constitution because Clinton nominated a few dozens "terrorist" judges. It has always been the role of the higher courts.
Just for me to understand your line of thought, please define the words "establishment", "religion", "prohibiting", "free", "exercise", "abridging", "freedom", "speech", "press", "right", "people", "peaceably", "assemble", "petition", "Government", "redress", "grievances". For extra cookies, define both the meaning the Framers wanted them to have and the necessary adaptations to modern day. Note that I am noting trying to be difficult here - but that's what the courts are for...
The speed limit must be set somewhere. Yes, going anything above it is reason to give you a ticket. If you don't like it or don't trust your instruments, nothing prevents you to compensate by driving as if the limit was 50 mph. Obviously there can be "tolerances", say 1% or 5%.
But it gets worse: your example talks about the average velocity, so we may well suppose you reached speeds far above the 60 mph limit (while driveing at 40 mph) for the rest of the time).
I think you are not a Creationist then. That almost requires the literal interpretation of a particular holy text (that's your Biblical Creationism").
Most creationists I meet would not consider you one of them. Actually they would probably consider your view worst than the "communist atheistic evolutionism", because you have a chance of being heard by their "herd".
What about a spammer who's trying to develop a blogging app in order to support the crack habit of a nearly-bankrupt orphanage residents? Would that be enough move your cold heart?
Wanna bet Talk.Origins gets in the first list?
The only black market you need is a black market for Anonymous Proxy Servers lists...
After sending a million spam messages to a million recipients using this system, the originating node receives a million challenges. Not DDOS per se, but it will almost always bring the spammer down as a (nice) side-effect.
You have to catch the virgin first. Sadly, this should prove very difficult for those reading this article.
I would say a mirror would do the job. Failing that, the guy in the next cube. Next basement. Next dorm room. Endles possibilities here.
Everything Microsoft did to date, from word processor to compilers to full operating systems, has only become usable (and in some cases, barely) in the third version. Why then would they expend their hard extorted monopoly money on a version 2 of anything?
First, he said he can (as in "is able to because either it is on network TV or he paid for the cable showing it") record the shows.
Second, at least this way someone gains: if he does not watch the shows, the benefit for the station/provider/advertisers is zero. If he downloads a file made elsewhere, that station/provider/advertiser combo benefits. The mean effect of people who paid for the content downloading it instead of watching directly is probably nil.
I mentioned Ann Richards... :)
The continent is called "America" - those who live in it, all of it, are then "Americans". Simple. People born in Germany are both Germans and Europeans, as the Chinese are also Asians. This way, Brazilians and Colombians are as Americans as any former Texan Governor...
Oh, come on - you shouldn't call yourselves "North Americans" either - there are the Canadians and the Mexicans sharing the northern subcontinent with you. And, obviously, the people who live in South America does not call themselves by the continent name - it would be unpolite and unseemly. But then again, being "American" means you don't have to care about what other people think, right?
the term "American" has been adopted to mean "one of the United States of America."
You can adopt whatever you want. It does not automatically follow that people from other countries in the (North/Central/South) American continent have to follow, agree or refrain from finding you ridiculous...
Not getting the joke is "Insightful"?
This is the kind of thing that gives lawyers a bad name. You describe a fantastic money machine then spoils everything by saying "Personally, I'd set up in a small town, could get rent for $1000, a receptionist for $8/hr, and a paralegal for under $30k. A pure profit machine."
With this kind of profit, set up in a nice $5k office, pay $20/hr to the girl in the front desk, make the paralegals beg to work for you by paying them $60k-$100k. You'd still be making tons of money and everyone in the office would be happy...
He'd better turn his Italian card too.
All contries can and do impose restrictions on what you can buy and where. If you are an American citizen you can't legally buy anything from Cuba (or produced in Cuba, for that matter - even if you buy it from a third or fourth part), Syria, Iran etc. There are also import taxes to be paid on most products you can legally buy from other countries. I wouldn't be surprised of one or more of the recent laws regarding digital content had some disposition about buying music and DVDs elsewhere.
Your line of reasoning implies that a The New York Times journalist deserves more protection than a New York Post journalist. After all, the Times is serious journalism while the Post is a smelly mount of rumor, gossip and blood.
Apple has every right to sue the NDA breaker, but online journalism (regardless of its perceived quality) should afford the same degree of protection offered to its offline counterparts.
I can only begin to imagine the kind of mess we will be on by extending the full protection of law to every single person with access to the Internet and a taste fro writing, but then again I will love to see it unfold.
A blog can be many things to many people. Mary Doe diary about her cooking experiences is a blog. Alan Cox diary, which predated blogs by more than a decade, can be called a blog. I have already seem (but not agreeded with) people calling Slashdot and K5 blogs. And then you have news blogs, political blogs like Kos and many, many tech news blogs, some small one-hobbyst operations, some big and fairly well-funded sites.
A blogger can be anything from a suburban housewive to a serious journalist to many other things. Throw away all protections journalists enjoy just because there is no CNN or Fox behind someone is not only unfair, it is a way to kill this new form of journalism before it is even completely born. And remember we wouldn't be having this conversation if the bloggers in questions had published this information is a college newspaper, for instance. Because then the judge would have thrown Apple out of the room in a minute.
People should pay attention to what rabit Apple is trying to pull from the hat here. If you read the article,
"In its court filings, Apple argued that neither the free speech protections of the United States Constitution nor the California Shield Law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources, applies to the Web sites. The company said such protections apply only to 'legitimate members of the press.'"
So basically Apple is saying bloggers are not "legitimate members of the press" and the judge (tentatively, meaning it is a preliminary ruling) agreed. If this holds water, the consequences can be huge. Some questions will need new answers: Who is a legitimate member of the press? What is a "news organisation"? If an online presence is not enough to caractherize such an organisation, what is? A paper? A radio?
This a fine new front in the "us against them" battle for the Internet.
1) This is not a Federal case
2) This is being tried in California
3) California has an specific law protecting journalists from this kind of thing, the Shield law:
"California enacted a shield law in 1935 and, in 1980, incorporated it into the state constitution. The shield law protects a journalist from being held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose either unpublished information or the source of any information that was gathered for news purposes, whether the source is confidential or not. An exception can arise where a criminal defendant's federal constitutional right to a fair trial would be violated without a reporter's testimony."
I don't know if it aplies to this case, but the law exists.
The case is in California. I don't think New York State Consolidated Laws apply there. On the other hand, California has a Shield Law that provides persons connected with news organizations with an immunity from being held in contempt "for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for [public dissemination]... or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.", that may or may not apply.