You're just playing with semantics. If you mentally rewrite what I said to be about how the cell phone does not raise a reasonable doubt, my point doesn't change at all.
But the phone indicating that the person was at his house does raise a "reasonable doubt" unless there is other evidence that proves he was somewhere else - not that his DNA was there but him. If they give a provide a reasonable explanation for how the DNA go there and have proof that his phone was somewhere else it all adds to a reasonable doubt.
Based on what he said Jury Nullification cannot be trumped by a Rule 50 motion.
if a court finds that a jury would not have sufficient evidentiary basis to rule as it
A not-guilty verdict cannot be contested this way as the jury is saying there is not enough evidence to find guilt. Rule 50 sounds like it is used when a jury finds a defendant guilty without enough evidence to support it.
As most of you, I only read TFS, but this wasn't the TSA to blame.
It's completly in a pilots discretion if he want's to have some prankster on board who doesn't care if the whole flight gets delayed because of a funny shirt.
However, if the TSA didn't waste time harassing him over a stupid t-shirt, the flight would of been in no risk of being delayed. So who's fault is it again?
How can anyone be naive enough to think that you can wear an anti-TSA T-shirt when you're going through a TSA checkpoint and not have a problem?
I don't know, perhaps they read the First Amendment and thought it actually still applied.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We have the right in this country to criticize our government, its agencies and agents without fear from legal repercussions from them. So, yes, when government agents harass him simply because he criticized them it is a big deal.
because -- get this -- the app comes pre-installed.
My thoughts are that since it is pre-installed, was advertised as a feature of the phone purchased and the cellular service contract that blocking it constitutes false advertising, bait-and-switch and the like. Cue the lawsuits!
However, there is a sizable contingent of religious people out there who think that religious "freedom" means the freedom for everyone to be Christian, and anything that interferes with that goal is (or should) violate the First Amendment.
Not exactly. They think religious "freedom" means that they have the freedom to teach their kids to believe whatever they want (which is true). But further than that they think it means that they are free from anyone else contradicting those beliefs with their own beliefs which is where they are wrong, they have no so such freedom as it, obviously, severely restricts everyone else's freedom to say and believe what they wish.
Yes, the Author's estate has been decided to also be included in this and can be willed just like any other asset the Author holds. However, they did not create new rights for the heirs, only allowed the inheritance of the existing rights. This is talking about creating new rights for the Broadcasters of said writings which is basically saying the "Broadcast" of the existing work is a completely new work and the Author is the broadcaster which is complete and utter BS. I can't wholesale copy someone else's work and then republish it as my own work with my own copyright (even with the Author's permission). The permission gives me the right to copy but does not give me a copyright to it, the Author maintains the copyright over the original and subsequent work.
You highlighted the wrong phrase that makes this unconstituional.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Bugs Bunny cartoons are edited because blackface shouldn't be considered entertaining anymore.
Uh, let me get this straight. An explosion happens in a cartoon and instead of being injured, maimed, or killed the character has his face covered in soot. This is racist? How?
Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own
Not quite, it is actually an extension of case #3 to cover all cars everywhere, all the time. If these things are everywhere, reading everyone's plates, and storing the data then they have a pretty effective (although maybe not entirely complete) GPS tracking of every car, where it's been, where it's going, and when it was there.
Munis should build the infrastructure and operate as non-profits. Shut the telecoms and cable conglomerates down - they are bringing the internet age to a grinding crawl.
I propose a compromise. The Muni's should seize all the lines (cable/fiber) and lease it back to any ISP that wants to provide service. Viola competition.
For it to be entrapment, the police have to initiate the wrongdoing - e.g., if an undercover cop asks you out of the blue if you'd like to buy drugs, that's entrapment.
I think that's close but then there are these types of stings which are (arguably) legal. An undercover cop asks you out of the blue if you want "a good time" or to pay for sex. It's out-of-the-blue because you were just driving by.
Let's assume you are a person. Let's also assume you like to associate with like-minded people. Should your association with other people strip your rights?
I don't know why i'll reply to am AC but I'll bite. No, your rights should not be stripped. However, your rights also should not carry over to the association and become the association's rights. The association has no rights (or shouldn't), only the individuals comprising it do.
First, there are many private industries involved in health care; pharmaceuticals, device manufacturers, private practices, hospitals, and insurance companies. They all profit off of pain and suffering or the curing thereof. The insurance companies are at the top and mark-up/profit off of everything that falls below them. What ACA did was force every consumer to buy health insurance from a private company - it does not provide for universal health care. It is ensuring, under the power of law, that the private health insurance industry receives business and generates profits. I'm not saying regulating health insurance is tyranny, I'm saying forcing the market to buy it is. They are separate and different issues. Just because they were lumped together in a single bill does not mean they cannot be debated as separate issues.
Seriously, dude? Private industry profits are more important than doing the right thing?
You may want to re-read my post as that isn't even close to what I said. I said mandating private industry profits via congressional edict (or via the force of law) is not freedom it is tyranny. I went further and said that it is still tyranny regardless of whether a person thinks it is the right thing to do or not.
Please explain to me how people who could not afford insurance before can magically afford it now? I live in MA where insurance was already mandated and subsidized-plans are available for low-income and there is a tax penalty for non-compliance. Guess what? We still have people who cannot afford and do not have health insurance. The only difference the law to made to those people is they now have a $300 penalty every year on their taxes and still no coverage. This is what will happen nationally, the people who this law was supposed to help will end up getting screwed on their taxes and still have no coverage.
Legislating private industry profits is not freedom it is tyranny regardless of whether you think it's the right thing to do or not.
I take it one step further, logically. The current term (I believe) is the Life of the Author plus some additional years (like 70 or something ludicrous). Making the length of time be the life of the author makes the amount of time unlimited when looked at from the perspective of the author. It literally lasts for all the time they have in the world with no limits.
You don't have to accept it without evidence, I agree. But your bias shows in your dismissing it outright without evidence, or at least without citing any.
since it involves the government meddling in how private corporations run their business.
Which Government? Federal, State or Local? When talking policy you have to be specific at which level of government you are talking about. Some policies are wrong for the Federal Government to enact but perfectly fine for State or Local government to (examples: health care, education) and this is due to the fact that the Constitution severely limits (spurious supreme court rulings aside) the power of the Federal Government, leaving all remaining powers to the States or to the People.
I wish that I could, except that in his rush to claim credit for the death of OBL he outed them and most of them are now dead, killed in a retaliatory strike against their helicopter (according to Obama anyway). The circumstance can be speculated on endlessly but the fact remains, Obama, for political gain, exposed the identity of our service members and put them at increased risk. There was no need to mention which team from which branch of the military completed the mission as this is typically considered classified military information.
You've got to be careful with statements like this. You can't just say "[The dollar] is worth less-and-less every day" without saying less of what.
Perhaps I should of quoted what I was responding to, that would of cleared up any confusion. The parent was asking if the dollar is in a bubble why is it buying you less-and-less gold when it should be buying you more-and-more? The original argument being that gold was in a bubble. My reply was, as you read, the dollar was in a bubble which is deflating/bursting and thus worth less-and-less every day (when compared to gold).
A dollar today may buy me less gasoline than it would have bought yesterday, but it still clears exactly the same amount of debt off my mortgage that it would have yesterday (for sake of example ignore interest here)
I'd like to ignore it but you can't remove a fundamental part of the process for sake of an example and still be describing the same thing. The reason there is interest attached to the loan is (partly/mostly) because of the depreciation of the value of the dollar over time. They know it will be worth less when you pay it back which is why they want you to pay back more than you borrowed. The extra covers inflation and allows them to profit off the loan.
Slashdot Mirror
You're just playing with semantics. If you mentally rewrite what I said to be about how the cell phone does not raise a reasonable doubt, my point doesn't change at all.
But the phone indicating that the person was at his house does raise a "reasonable doubt" unless there is other evidence that proves he was somewhere else - not that his DNA was there but him. If they give a provide a reasonable explanation for how the DNA go there and have proof that his phone was somewhere else it all adds to a reasonable doubt.
if a court finds that a jury would not have sufficient evidentiary basis to rule as it
A not-guilty verdict cannot be contested this way as the jury is saying there is not enough evidence to find guilt. Rule 50 sounds like it is used when a jury finds a defendant guilty without enough evidence to support it.
As most of you, I only read TFS, but this wasn't the TSA to blame. It's completly in a pilots discretion if he want's to have some prankster on board who doesn't care if the whole flight gets delayed because of a funny shirt.
However, if the TSA didn't waste time harassing him over a stupid t-shirt, the flight would of been in no risk of being delayed. So who's fault is it again?
How can anyone be naive enough to think that you can wear an anti-TSA T-shirt when you're going through a TSA checkpoint and not have a problem?
I don't know, perhaps they read the First Amendment and thought it actually still applied.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We have the right in this country to criticize our government, its agencies and agents without fear from legal repercussions from them. So, yes, when government agents harass him simply because he criticized them it is a big deal.
because -- get this -- the app comes pre-installed.
My thoughts are that since it is pre-installed, was advertised as a feature of the phone purchased and the cellular service contract that blocking it constitutes false advertising, bait-and-switch and the like. Cue the lawsuits!
Because it is fundamental to the free exercise of religion....Duh!
However, there is a sizable contingent of religious people out there who think that religious "freedom" means the freedom for everyone to be Christian, and anything that interferes with that goal is (or should) violate the First Amendment.
Not exactly. They think religious "freedom" means that they have the freedom to teach their kids to believe whatever they want (which is true). But further than that they think it means that they are free from anyone else contradicting those beliefs with their own beliefs which is where they are wrong, they have no so such freedom as it, obviously, severely restricts everyone else's freedom to say and believe what they wish.
Yes, the Author's estate has been decided to also be included in this and can be willed just like any other asset the Author holds. However, they did not create new rights for the heirs, only allowed the inheritance of the existing rights. This is talking about creating new rights for the Broadcasters of said writings which is basically saying the "Broadcast" of the existing work is a completely new work and the Author is the broadcaster which is complete and utter BS. I can't wholesale copy someone else's work and then republish it as my own work with my own copyright (even with the Author's permission). The permission gives me the right to copy but does not give me a copyright to it, the Author maintains the copyright over the original and subsequent work.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Bugs Bunny cartoons are edited because blackface shouldn't be considered entertaining anymore.
Uh, let me get this straight. An explosion happens in a cartoon and instead of being injured, maimed, or killed the character has his face covered in soot. This is racist? How?
Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own
Not quite, it is actually an extension of case #3 to cover all cars everywhere, all the time. If these things are everywhere, reading everyone's plates, and storing the data then they have a pretty effective (although maybe not entirely complete) GPS tracking of every car, where it's been, where it's going, and when it was there.
Munis should build the infrastructure and operate as non-profits. Shut the telecoms and cable conglomerates down - they are bringing the internet age to a grinding crawl.
I propose a compromise. The Muni's should seize all the lines (cable/fiber) and lease it back to any ISP that wants to provide service. Viola competition.
For it to be entrapment, the police have to initiate the wrongdoing - e.g., if an undercover cop asks you out of the blue if you'd like to buy drugs, that's entrapment.
I think that's close but then there are these types of stings which are (arguably) legal. An undercover cop asks you out of the blue if you want "a good time" or to pay for sex. It's out-of-the-blue because you were just driving by.
Let's assume you are a person. Let's also assume you like to associate with like-minded people. Should your association with other people strip your rights?
I don't know why i'll reply to am AC but I'll bite. No, your rights should not be stripped. However, your rights also should not carry over to the association and become the association's rights. The association has no rights (or shouldn't), only the individuals comprising it do.
First, there are many private industries involved in health care; pharmaceuticals, device manufacturers, private practices, hospitals, and insurance companies. They all profit off of pain and suffering or the curing thereof. The insurance companies are at the top and mark-up/profit off of everything that falls below them. What ACA did was force every consumer to buy health insurance from a private company - it does not provide for universal health care. It is ensuring, under the power of law, that the private health insurance industry receives business and generates profits. I'm not saying regulating health insurance is tyranny, I'm saying forcing the market to buy it is. They are separate and different issues. Just because they were lumped together in a single bill does not mean they cannot be debated as separate issues.
Someone's been listening to Rush.
In fact, I have never once listened to Rush.
Seriously, dude? Private industry profits are more important than doing the right thing?
You may want to re-read my post as that isn't even close to what I said. I said mandating private industry profits via congressional edict (or via the force of law) is not freedom it is tyranny. I went further and said that it is still tyranny regardless of whether a person thinks it is the right thing to do or not.
Legislating private industry profits is not freedom it is tyranny regardless of whether you think it's the right thing to do or not.
First, there is no actual evidence that premiums will go up.
Really? Considering they went up significantly immediately after the law was passed, I'd say this is now fact.
I take it one step further, logically. The current term (I believe) is the Life of the Author plus some additional years (like 70 or something ludicrous). Making the length of time be the life of the author makes the amount of time unlimited when looked at from the perspective of the author. It literally lasts for all the time they have in the world with no limits.
You don't have to accept it without evidence, I agree. But your bias shows in your dismissing it outright without evidence, or at least without citing any.
But you don't when they prescribe things that are just about as effective as a placebo? Your bias is showing.
since it involves the government meddling in how private corporations run their business.
Which Government? Federal, State or Local? When talking policy you have to be specific at which level of government you are talking about. Some policies are wrong for the Federal Government to enact but perfectly fine for State or Local government to (examples: health care, education) and this is due to the fact that the Constitution severely limits (spurious supreme court rulings aside) the power of the Federal Government, leaving all remaining powers to the States or to the People.
Besides, much of alternative medicine is already legal.
Legal for you, as an individual, to practice? Yes. Legal for a medical professional to prescribe to you? Doubtful.
Ask the brave members of SEAL Team Six.
I wish that I could, except that in his rush to claim credit for the death of OBL he outed them and most of them are now dead, killed in a retaliatory strike against their helicopter (according to Obama anyway). The circumstance can be speculated on endlessly but the fact remains, Obama, for political gain, exposed the identity of our service members and put them at increased risk. There was no need to mention which team from which branch of the military completed the mission as this is typically considered classified military information.
You've got to be careful with statements like this. You can't just say "[The dollar] is worth less-and-less every day" without saying less of what.
Perhaps I should of quoted what I was responding to, that would of cleared up any confusion. The parent was asking if the dollar is in a bubble why is it buying you less-and-less gold when it should be buying you more-and-more? The original argument being that gold was in a bubble. My reply was, as you read, the dollar was in a bubble which is deflating/bursting and thus worth less-and-less every day (when compared to gold).
A dollar today may buy me less gasoline than it would have bought yesterday, but it still clears exactly the same amount of debt off my mortgage that it would have yesterday (for sake of example ignore interest here)
I'd like to ignore it but you can't remove a fundamental part of the process for sake of an example and still be describing the same thing. The reason there is interest attached to the loan is (partly/mostly) because of the depreciation of the value of the dollar over time. They know it will be worth less when you pay it back which is why they want you to pay back more than you borrowed. The extra covers inflation and allows them to profit off the loan.