Maybe they want Royalty and aristocrats to have the right to be forgotten but want all the serfs subject to continual monitoring?
I can't help but notice that the preamble's statement that "Encryption is a necessary means of protecting fundamental rights and the digital security of governments, industry and society" seems to suggest that the first two groups exist outside of the third, rather than being subsets of it.
The reason we have the second Amendment is so we can guard our lives and our families and our personal property against those who would bring harm to them. It is our duty to protect our country with a clear conscience against an oppressive tyranny that destroys our Constitution and our peaceble way of life in America. Those forces that are aimed at America now know that entirely too well. It is keeping millions of Americans safe tonight.
Why am I picturing Cleavon Little dressed as Uncle Sam, pointing a gun at his own head and shouting "Hold it! The next man that makes a move, the tyrant gets it!"
When I look for a good it's FINE with me if drug dealers don't get the money.
If the police stop the outbound payment to suppliers for a delivered product, the local dealers have nonetheless received their supply and are still able to make money off of it. If the police stop the inbound product, however, local dealers have no reason to pay the suppliers and nothing to sell and profit from.
The cops could make sure that twice the number of drug dealers "don't get the money" just by moving their focus across the median to the other side of the interstate... but they choose not to. Even if you support the stupid drug war and think the cops are all well-intentioned, it's ridiculous to approve of them doing such a half-assed job at it.
When you realize the world can see that you're behaving like an asshole, a decent human being ties to stop being an asshole. A politician tries to gouge out the world's eyes. It's kinda fascinating that we so frequently elect sociopaths to govern our society.
'...history of assault' is apparently not a deal-breaker or even something to get overly concerned about, at least until they kill someone and it becomes big enough of a stink that they can't just brush it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen/the victim 'had it coming'.Jacey Fortin seems to be spritzing the Febreze and wielding a whisk-broom in any event. What a trooper.
Weirdly enough, my discrete mathematics professor always handed back our exams in class from highest to lowest score so that we all all knew how well/poorly each other did. To this day, I don't know if it was a brilliant joke or gratuitous cruelty.
I thought that standard rental agreements included words about not entering residence without prior coordination.
"I contacted the doorknob two days ago and we arranged for it to let me in at 10 this morning."
ANY case where someone made a standalone statement that was ruled defamatory would qualify.
You mean like United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls?
Not to mention that a passenger can see the driving/traffic conditions and read body language expressing "focus lies elsewhere for important reasons", and not take an interruption in the conversation as a social slight.
Even with that, I still find myself letting fly with the occasional "Shut up a minute willya I'm drivin' here."
The point is if every wrongly accused person did their civic duty and put their money toward dragging their town into court - then the town would eventually realize - "hey, we're spending way too much money defending absurd tickets!"
Or "hey, we need to raise taxes!"
“Mr. Giustra’s aim is not in any way to censor thoughts or ideas or legitimate expression – but it does seek to prevent publication of statements which are unlawful for a variety of reasons,” Mr. Kozak said in an interview.
Wouldn't that mean a court would have to determine the legality of every statement? If having "joe average" moderators review every tweet made would be ridiculously expensive, imagine how much it would cost if they had to be judges. I'm willing bet Kozak is in the pocket of Big Judiciary.
The police may have assaulted a couple, stolen their belongings, and destroyed their business, but at least we can rest safe knowing that we live in a stable society free of the corrupting influence of drugs.
Re: Why aren't police being told to nerd harder
Maybe they want Royalty and aristocrats to have the right to be forgotten but want all the serfs subject to continual monitoring? I can't help but notice that the preamble's statement that "Encryption is a necessary means of protecting fundamental rights and the digital security of governments, industry and society" seems to suggest that the first two groups exist outside of the third, rather than being subsets of it.
Re: Re: Re: Liberals try to create milieu in which gun = guilt o
Re:
I look at it as system analysis and debugging of the human-engineered machine we call the government.
Re: Re: Re: What's wrong with interdicting money?
When I look for a good it's FINE with me if drug dealers don't get the money. If the police stop the outbound payment to suppliers for a delivered product, the local dealers have nonetheless received their supply and are still able to make money off of it. If the police stop the inbound product, however, local dealers have no reason to pay the suppliers and nothing to sell and profit from. The cops could make sure that twice the number of drug dealers "don't get the money" just by moving their focus across the median to the other side of the interstate... but they choose not to. Even if you support the stupid drug war and think the cops are all well-intentioned, it's ridiculous to approve of them doing such a half-assed job at it.
When you realize the world can see that you're behaving like an asshole, a decent human being ties to stop being an asshole. A politician tries to gouge out the world's eyes. It's kinda fascinating that we so frequently elect sociopaths to govern our society.
Re: Re:
'...history of assault' is apparently not a deal-breaker or even something to get overly concerned about, at least until they kill someone and it becomes big enough of a stink that they can't just brush it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen/the victim 'had it coming'. Jacey Fortin seems to be spritzing the Febreze and wielding a whisk-broom in any event. What a trooper.
Re:
Arrested and charged? For god's sake man, how much more could he suffer (and how much more could he possibly learn!?) after the hell of a reprimand?
Re: Re: Ugh...spelling errors.
Weirdly enough, my discrete mathematics professor always handed back our exams in class from highest to lowest score so that we all all knew how well/poorly each other did. To this day, I don't know if it was a brilliant joke or gratuitous cruelty.
Re: Nudity taboos meet the Sorites Paradox
...but some judges see porn where others do not. Except in Alex Kozinski's chambers. They all saw porn there.
I humbly surrender my Ed's Choice to the AC who had this response to my comment.
Re: Re:
I thought that standard rental agreements included words about not entering residence without prior coordination. "I contacted the doorknob two days ago and we arranged for it to let me in at 10 this morning."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Impotent threats are still threats
The Slack Awakens
Re: Re:
ANY case where someone made a standalone statement that was ruled defamatory would qualify. You mean like United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls?
Re:
At this point, I'd be happy if he'd cite any case that supports anything.
Re: Re: Re: There is a difference
Not to mention that a passenger can see the driving/traffic conditions and read body language expressing "focus lies elsewhere for important reasons", and not take an interruption in the conversation as a social slight. Even with that, I still find myself letting fly with the occasional "Shut up a minute willya I'm drivin' here."
Re: The Main Point - cost money
The point is if every wrongly accused person did their civic duty and put their money toward dragging their town into court - then the town would eventually realize - "hey, we're spending way too much money defending absurd tickets!" Or "hey, we need to raise taxes!"
“Mr. Giustra’s aim is not in any way to censor thoughts or ideas or legitimate expression – but it does seek to prevent publication of statements which are unlawful for a variety of reasons,” Mr. Kozak said in an interview.
Wouldn't that mean a court would have to determine the legality of every statement? If having "joe average" moderators review every tweet made would be ridiculously expensive, imagine how much it would cost if they had to be judges. I'm willing bet Kozak is in the pocket of Big Judiciary.
Re: Stop with the passive voice
Enjoy a Steven Pinker talk.
The police may have assaulted a couple, stolen their belongings, and destroyed their business, but at least we can rest safe knowing that we live in a stable society free of the corrupting influence of drugs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, it's sort of a no-brainer
[Note to self: new Dostoevsky material needs work; for now, go back to dumb Kurt Gödel references and stealing from John Oliver.]