Generally when you talk about positive rights, it means the government must provide something. Negative rights prevent the government from doing something. The US Bill of Rights is generally considered to be all negative rights. So, it is clearer to refrain from using those adjectives when talking about rights unless you are describing how they affect the government, as opposed to whether they are good or bad.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
Actually, studies comparing economics and freedom have shown a strong correlation between social freedom and economic growth and development. Although maybe not the level of proof, it does show that there are strong advantages for everyone in increasing personal freedom.
I wasn't making a normative claim. Besides, perfect is the enemy of the good. I'd rather have this than an absence of legislation. This restores some of the freedoms lost, and as long as people don't become complacent, then it can be seen as a first step, not a destination.
I'm curious how many people here have read the legislation instead of reacting to sound bites on TV. I mean, it does increase protection over what has been afforded since 2007, and while not the ideal of increasing protection back to pre-2001 levels, it at least restores some freedom.
Exactly. There must be some evolutionary reason to turn it off, as it seems that this gene, in and of itself, would lead to sturdier off-spring, and thus propagate. It would be interesting to know why it got turned off, though. Rampant cancer, maybe?
This sounds like an area where American metal working could enjoy some sort of renaissance. I wonder what the start-up costs for such an endeavor are, what the future growth and profit margins are, and where such competency could be applied outside of reactors and and swords. But, with low skill metal working being outsourced, such specialized skills might be a place for America to specialize, especially as the dollar continues to fall.
That may be true, but does prevention of piracy really outweigh my privacy concerns with having an ISP look that deeply into all packets? If my representative thinks so, then he has last my vote.
Yes, the troops did. Its long been the law that Soldiers give up certain 1st Amend rights, most especially the right to make political statements in uniform. I'm not arguing that this particular policy is good; in fact I think its stupid. But, in answer to your question, Soldiers do sign away certain rights when they join.
The Amici briefs in the DC v. Heller case at the US Supreme Court have a ton of detailed, peer reviewed research on how guns impact crime. Its pretty interesting, and goes a long way to show that gun ownership drastically reduces crime. See, for example, this one.
I don't disagree with the general premise of the article, but using Play as a data point is pretty weak. The game itself is only $10, since its bundled with a $40 controller that is required for almost all games. As a bargain game, I don't think it competes at the same level as say Bioshock or Metroid.
If you add new matter, its prior art date is of the continuation in part that you filed to add the new matter. Otherwise, all of the adjustments must have support in the original filing. Essentially, what you propose is the way the system works now.
A quick glance at the patent shows a priority date of 1997. I'm not sure what all's covered by the initial application they filed in '97, but prior art references will have to be from 1996 to be iron tight.
The right to abortion is not predicated any longer on a privacy right. Its based on equal protection under the 14th Amendment. However, examining further the privacy argument (and, the privacy's arguments inability to stand up under scrutiny is one reason why the justification was shifted), it makes little sense. In amending the constitution, there are specific instances of privacy covered, but not privacy as a whole. This, under common interpretive guidelines, would point out that the authors considered privacy, but decided against a broad right to privacy and instead protected it only in certain instances. The government legislates against privacy all the time, and very few people argue against a constitutional prohibition. Isn't a right to die a private medical decision, but its still criminal for a doctor to assist in that regard. The same can be said for certain classes of drugs, both under a doctor's care and outside of a doctor's care. Since state governments are far more accountable to the people, I would argue the opposite- restricting the federal government with respect to the states is both good law, good sense, and the predicate of the constitution as it was written. Incidentally, I would like to know why constitutional challenges to abortion are different than all other constitutional challenges? Specifically, I mean that when abortion statutes are challenged, they are challenged facially, and are struck down if its possible to inhibit a woman's right to choose. For most laws, the law is construed so that it doesn't conflict with the constitution if possible, and only if all possible applications of the law would be unconstitutional will a law be struck down. That's why there aren't many facial challenges. Instead, as applied challenges are used, when a statute actually infringes on a right, and then a statute can be curtailed. Why does abortion get a unique constitutional protection? It makes little sense, unless you accept that abortion is subject to an ends justifies the means jurisprudence. Finally, the 10th Amendment, although now toothless, on its face restricts the federal government's ability to interfere with the states. I don't understand your assertion that it means we should interpret rights protected by the federal gov't broadly; it seems to do the opposite. Also, a historical view of the 9th argues against that assertion as well. The debate over the bill of rights included the proposition that the federal gov't would take it as an exclusive list, and try and legislate other things. Included in legislating other things is an attempt to redefine rights over the objection of sovereign states, and thus the 9th was added to alleviate this fear. As far as your assertion that under the constitution its the federal government's job to protect you against the states, I would point you to Jefferson's writings on the sedition acts. That certainly wasn't the point of the constitution in view of the people who voted for and ratified it. Although courts have held that the 14th Amend incorporated the Bill of Rights (or at least certain amendments) against the states, there are still some rough edges to be worked on with that doctrine as well.
Since Roe v. Wade has already been overturned (See, Casey v. Panned Parenthood), that's not such a big deal. But while we're at it, why is it okay to bend the constitution to achieve a social goal? What happens when people who disagree with you do the same thing? It seems to me that restricting the federal gov't to its enumerated powers is something a friend of liberty would do, even if it required trusting certain individual social ideals to the states. Abortion never should have been a federal issue. I would also posit that the right to life movement really didn't gain strength until it was a federal issue. In the long view, its entirely possible that Roe v. Wade will do more harm to "abortion rights" than letting a sleeping dog lie.
I'm surprised she's willing to take this kind of risk, and I'm very surprised that Jones Day is aiding her. Its just one client, and one matter before the FTC. Better that she recuse herself and be able to go back to Jones Day with no issues of impropriety than to play games and face some bar action. Most states have more liberal conflict guidelines for government employees, but sometimes arguing the letter of the law isn't worth the PR cost.
Generally, companies agree to be bound to a country's laws in exchange for the ability to do business there. If Google wants to do business in Europe, it must submit to its laws. All states have similar provisions in the US for companies based in one state, but wanting to do business in another.
I think this Wiki article is dubious at best, which might be one of the reasons for the lack of citations. If I had time to do the research, I would correct it with the proper case law, but a quick look at the Constitution shows that an actual treaty (not all international agreements are treaties) generally trumps domestic law. It comes in second to the Constitution itself. There are a couple of cases this term though that might provide some more definite case law on this, and with the current composition of the court, I wouldn't be surprised if treaties were marginalized.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if the high click throughs are due to the low price.
Generally when you talk about positive rights, it means the government must provide something. Negative rights prevent the government from doing something. The US Bill of Rights is generally considered to be all negative rights. So, it is clearer to refrain from using those adjectives when talking about rights unless you are describing how they affect the government, as opposed to whether they are good or bad.
Actually, studies comparing economics and freedom have shown a strong correlation between social freedom and economic growth and development. Although maybe not the level of proof, it does show that there are strong advantages for everyone in increasing personal freedom.
I wasn't making a normative claim. Besides, perfect is the enemy of the good. I'd rather have this than an absence of legislation. This restores some of the freedoms lost, and as long as people don't become complacent, then it can be seen as a first step, not a destination.
Protection from wiretapping, not terrorists. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I'm curious how many people here have read the legislation instead of reacting to sound bites on TV. I mean, it does increase protection over what has been afforded since 2007, and while not the ideal of increasing protection back to pre-2001 levels, it at least restores some freedom.
I thought there were studies that show symmetry had a very high impact on attractiveness.
Exactly. There must be some evolutionary reason to turn it off, as it seems that this gene, in and of itself, would lead to sturdier off-spring, and thus propagate. It would be interesting to know why it got turned off, though. Rampant cancer, maybe?
This sounds like an area where American metal working could enjoy some sort of renaissance. I wonder what the start-up costs for such an endeavor are, what the future growth and profit margins are, and where such competency could be applied outside of reactors and and swords. But, with low skill metal working being outsourced, such specialized skills might be a place for America to specialize, especially as the dollar continues to fall.
That may be true, but does prevention of piracy really outweigh my privacy concerns with having an ISP look that deeply into all packets? If my representative thinks so, then he has last my vote.
Yes, the troops did. Its long been the law that Soldiers give up certain 1st Amend rights, most especially the right to make political statements in uniform. I'm not arguing that this particular policy is good; in fact I think its stupid. But, in answer to your question, Soldiers do sign away certain rights when they join.
Even in the Army, with full access to GPS satellites, the compass is essential.
The Amici briefs in the DC v. Heller case at the US Supreme Court have a ton of detailed, peer reviewed research on how guns impact crime. Its pretty interesting, and goes a long way to show that gun ownership drastically reduces crime. See, for example, this one.
when marketing gets primacy over engineers....
I don't disagree with the general premise of the article, but using Play as a data point is pretty weak. The game itself is only $10, since its bundled with a $40 controller that is required for almost all games. As a bargain game, I don't think it competes at the same level as say Bioshock or Metroid.
Additionally, the hierarchy of redirection can be set on the client side. Maybe something like an A9 search toolbar with customized redirects.
If you add new matter, its prior art date is of the continuation in part that you filed to add the new matter. Otherwise, all of the adjustments must have support in the original filing. Essentially, what you propose is the way the system works now.
A quick glance at the patent shows a priority date of 1997. I'm not sure what all's covered by the initial application they filed in '97, but prior art references will have to be from 1996 to be iron tight.
The right to abortion is not predicated any longer on a privacy right. Its based on equal protection under the 14th Amendment. However, examining further the privacy argument (and, the privacy's arguments inability to stand up under scrutiny is one reason why the justification was shifted), it makes little sense. In amending the constitution, there are specific instances of privacy covered, but not privacy as a whole. This, under common interpretive guidelines, would point out that the authors considered privacy, but decided against a broad right to privacy and instead protected it only in certain instances. The government legislates against privacy all the time, and very few people argue against a constitutional prohibition. Isn't a right to die a private medical decision, but its still criminal for a doctor to assist in that regard. The same can be said for certain classes of drugs, both under a doctor's care and outside of a doctor's care. Since state governments are far more accountable to the people, I would argue the opposite- restricting the federal government with respect to the states is both good law, good sense, and the predicate of the constitution as it was written. Incidentally, I would like to know why constitutional challenges to abortion are different than all other constitutional challenges? Specifically, I mean that when abortion statutes are challenged, they are challenged facially, and are struck down if its possible to inhibit a woman's right to choose. For most laws, the law is construed so that it doesn't conflict with the constitution if possible, and only if all possible applications of the law would be unconstitutional will a law be struck down. That's why there aren't many facial challenges. Instead, as applied challenges are used, when a statute actually infringes on a right, and then a statute can be curtailed. Why does abortion get a unique constitutional protection? It makes little sense, unless you accept that abortion is subject to an ends justifies the means jurisprudence. Finally, the 10th Amendment, although now toothless, on its face restricts the federal government's ability to interfere with the states. I don't understand your assertion that it means we should interpret rights protected by the federal gov't broadly; it seems to do the opposite. Also, a historical view of the 9th argues against that assertion as well. The debate over the bill of rights included the proposition that the federal gov't would take it as an exclusive list, and try and legislate other things. Included in legislating other things is an attempt to redefine rights over the objection of sovereign states, and thus the 9th was added to alleviate this fear. As far as your assertion that under the constitution its the federal government's job to protect you against the states, I would point you to Jefferson's writings on the sedition acts. That certainly wasn't the point of the constitution in view of the people who voted for and ratified it. Although courts have held that the 14th Amend incorporated the Bill of Rights (or at least certain amendments) against the states, there are still some rough edges to be worked on with that doctrine as well.
Since Roe v. Wade has already been overturned (See, Casey v. Panned Parenthood), that's not such a big deal. But while we're at it, why is it okay to bend the constitution to achieve a social goal? What happens when people who disagree with you do the same thing? It seems to me that restricting the federal gov't to its enumerated powers is something a friend of liberty would do, even if it required trusting certain individual social ideals to the states. Abortion never should have been a federal issue. I would also posit that the right to life movement really didn't gain strength until it was a federal issue. In the long view, its entirely possible that Roe v. Wade will do more harm to "abortion rights" than letting a sleeping dog lie.
I'm surprised she's willing to take this kind of risk, and I'm very surprised that Jones Day is aiding her. Its just one client, and one matter before the FTC. Better that she recuse herself and be able to go back to Jones Day with no issues of impropriety than to play games and face some bar action. Most states have more liberal conflict guidelines for government employees, but sometimes arguing the letter of the law isn't worth the PR cost.
They do experience tear gas during NBC training. And, get tazered if they are going to carry a tazer- at least when they first were issued.
Generally, companies agree to be bound to a country's laws in exchange for the ability to do business there. If Google wants to do business in Europe, it must submit to its laws. All states have similar provisions in the US for companies based in one state, but wanting to do business in another.
I think this Wiki article is dubious at best, which might be one of the reasons for the lack of citations. If I had time to do the research, I would correct it with the proper case law, but a quick look at the Constitution shows that an actual treaty (not all international agreements are treaties) generally trumps domestic law. It comes in second to the Constitution itself. There are a couple of cases this term though that might provide some more definite case law on this, and with the current composition of the court, I wouldn't be surprised if treaties were marginalized.
I think that, for instance, EPA can bring suits against people, but more often corporations.