Students are meant to implicitly "understand" that studying Material A is allowed, but studying Material B is cheating?
If you get an email entitled "Study Guide!" and in it are 700 sample questions related to the material, should you use it to study or not? (And no asking anyone about it either! You should "just know", according to you.)
"Do you think the TSA should take measures to protect passenger safety?"
They could then claim "99.99% of people polled are perfectly okay with the TSA taking nude images and/or groping them!"
If you're going to put out blatantly pro-government propaganda, at least do it right. Even Saddam knew that; he always got 100% of the vote when he was in power.
If they are all gung-ho to start releasing videos when it suits them, I guess we can assume that any video they don't release is proof that what the harassed citizen is claiming actually happened.
If they've already violated the amendments in some situations, then the fact of the matter is that they're not truly limited at all. So in the end, it really IS a matter of "They're limited unless they feel they shouldn't be".
And some of us are trying to oppose the steady march towards a police state. But by all means, continue your "We've already gone this far towards fascism, why not just go all the way?" line of thinking.
You, sir, are the definition of ignorant. And I quote: "I don't care if this violates amendments, or what." THIS. As in THIS TSA, as in THIS backscatter scan, as in AIRLINE SECURITY THAT CAN SAVE ME GRIEF. Learn to read in context.
He understood your context perfectly. You find violating the bill of rights to be okay "in this particular case", which is idiotic, because if the government is allowed to choose when and where they can ignore the bill of rights, then why have it at all?
Part of coming to terms with tragedies is figuring out what could have been different to prevent them. It gives people somewhere to channel their anger, usually.
Crash a plane, and they tighten airport security more.
Blow up an airport security queue, and . . . what?
I would argue that the feeling of helplessness caused by bombing an airport security line cause much greater terror in the long run.
Look, people. If you don't have anything to hide, then there is no reason that you should not be willing to go through the scans.
Ah yes, that old fallacy. Tell that to this guy, who consented to letting the police search his car and ended up being railroaded by the justice system into a 7-year prison stint for following the law.
But by all means, continue to be ignorant of the world around you; most statists are.
If I read the decision correctly, it only applied to people who already went through security. That is, once you're inside, you can't refuse further searches. This guy didn't make it that far, so the ruling doesn't necessarily apply.
Furthermore, the original case was an appeal arguing that the drugs found on the man were the fruits of an illegal search, which the ruling denied, and thus the guy went to jail for drug possession. Since the guy in this case wasn't found to have any contraband, the ruling doesn't seem to apply there either (what would they charge him with?)
Of course that won't prevent the government from arguing that is does apply. After all, they'd probably like to search us before we get in the car to go to work every morning to if they could ("By buying a car, you implicitly agreed that that we could do whatever the hell we want to you before you get in it every morning!")
So my choices are (A) Submitting to a cancer-inducing pornography machine, or (B) letting a high school dropout feel up my junk.
Well, I guess if I'm going to be uncomfortable, I might as well make one of them uncomfortable too. Plus, you could always entertain yourself by making creepy statements while the pat-down was going on.
"Just a little higher . . . just little higher . . . yeaaaah, that's it."
Did you actually read anything about the case in question?
1. A woman and her organization speak out against what they feel is the unfair prosecution of a doctor.
2. The attorney general tries to have her gagged by the court to prevent her from speaking out.
3. When that fails, the attorney general has them subpoenaed for all their records (not because she has evidence that they did anything criminal, but because they disagreed with her and she wants them to shut up).
4. When they refuse and elevate the issue to a higher court, Reason/IJ submit an amicus brief on her behalf, detailing how the grand jury process is being used to stifle free speech in this case.
5. The judge seals the Reason/IJ amicus brief, giving the reason that he's afraid that people might read it.
How does the first amendment not apply here? It really doesn't get a whole lot more cut and dried than thism folks. If the first amendment doesn't protect your right to speak up in public about an issue of prosecutorial misconduct, or even talk about the act of talking about prosecutorial misconduct, then what does it protect?
Not only is the judge sealing up documents in the case just so people can't talk about the case freely, but it appears that the attorney general is attempting to stifle free speech by filing frivolous grand jury subpoenas in an effort to shut the woman up.
On Monday the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Siobhan Reynolds' petition for Supreme Court review of the grand jury investigation triggered by her advocacy on behalf of a Kansas doctor and nurse accused of running a "pill mill." [...]
In its brief, the Reporters Committee urges the Supreme Court to hear Reynolds' appeal so it can "reconcile conflicts among lower courts as to what standard of review applies to grand jury subpoenas that target expressive activities." It argues that "the government should not be able to frighten citizens into refraining from exercising their First Amendment rights of expression, advocacy and association by threatening them with compulsory process—at least not without first satisfying a heightened standard of scrutiny." The committee also wants the Court to "provide guidance as to what type of investigation qualifies as one conducted 'in good faith.'" It calls the case "a good example of those rare circumstances justifying court examination of prosecutorial discretion"
The article also notes that the sealed document was uploaded to Scribd, but since I can't get there from my work computer, I am unable search for it and post a link. Perhaps some enterprising individual not behind a corporate blockade can dig it out for us.
In a "pure" capitalist society, the government wouldn't be propping up the failing business models of private industry through the use of their legislative powers, which is the situation we have now.
The system in place is corporatist, not capitalist. Big difference.
I'm much too lazy to read TFA right now, but IIRC, the comment section of Slashdot had some qualms with the original summary of this story, in the sense that the guidelines didn't remove or replace four of the tests so much as clarify three of them.
On the post: 200 Students Admit To 'Cheating' On Exam... But Bigger Question Is If It Was Really Cheating Or Studying
Re: Re: Bah...
This is, by far, even stupider.
On the post: 200 Students Admit To 'Cheating' On Exam... But Bigger Question Is If It Was Really Cheating Or Studying
Re: Re: Re:
If you get an email entitled "Study Guide!" and in it are 700 sample questions related to the material, should you use it to study or not? (And no asking anyone about it either! You should "just know", according to you.)
On the post: 200 Students Admit To 'Cheating' On Exam... But Bigger Question Is If It Was Really Cheating Or Studying
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Shoddy Workmanship
"Do you think the TSA should take measures to protect passenger safety?"
They could then claim "99.99% of people polled are perfectly okay with the TSA taking nude images and/or groping them!"
If you're going to put out blatantly pro-government propaganda, at least do it right. Even Saddam knew that; he always got 100% of the vote when he was in power.
On the post: MPAA Boss Defends Censorships With Blatantly False Claims
Re:
Damn, I guess I can toss out my dictionary.
On the post: If You Don't Get Every Detail Of Your TSA Detention Exactly Right, The TSA May Publicly Shame You
What I Wonder About . . .
If they are all gung-ho to start releasing videos when it suits them, I guess we can assume that any video they don't release is proof that what the harassed citizen is claiming actually happened.
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
And some of us are trying to oppose the steady march towards a police state. But by all means, continue your "We've already gone this far towards fascism, why not just go all the way?" line of thinking.
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it.
He understood your context perfectly. You find violating the bill of rights to be okay "in this particular case", which is idiotic, because if the government is allowed to choose when and where they can ignore the bill of rights, then why have it at all?
Hence, his post.
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Re: Re: Re: MrWIlson
Crash a plane, and they tighten airport security more.
Blow up an airport security queue, and . . . what?
I would argue that the feeling of helplessness caused by bombing an airport security line cause much greater terror in the long run.
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Re: Re: Tough Call
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Deal with it.
Ah yes, that old fallacy. Tell that to this guy, who consented to letting the police search his car and ended up being railroaded by the justice system into a 7-year prison stint for following the law.
But by all means, continue to be ignorant of the world around you; most statists are.
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Supported by Appeals Court
Furthermore, the original case was an appeal arguing that the drugs found on the man were the fruits of an illegal search, which the ruling denied, and thus the guy went to jail for drug possession. Since the guy in this case wasn't found to have any contraband, the ruling doesn't seem to apply there either (what would they charge him with?)
Of course that won't prevent the government from arguing that is does apply. After all, they'd probably like to search us before we get in the car to go to work every morning to if they could ("By buying a car, you implicitly agreed that that we could do whatever the hell we want to you before you get in it every morning!")
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Tough Call
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Tough Call
Well, I guess if I'm going to be uncomfortable, I might as well make one of them uncomfortable too. Plus, you could always entertain yourself by making creepy statements while the pat-down was going on.
"Just a little higher . . . just little higher . . . yeaaaah, that's it."
On the post: Free Speech Isn't Free: Court Barring Access To Brief About Free Speech
Re:
1. A woman and her organization speak out against what they feel is the unfair prosecution of a doctor.
2. The attorney general tries to have her gagged by the court to prevent her from speaking out.
3. When that fails, the attorney general has them subpoenaed for all their records (not because she has evidence that they did anything criminal, but because they disagreed with her and she wants them to shut up).
4. When they refuse and elevate the issue to a higher court, Reason/IJ submit an amicus brief on her behalf, detailing how the grand jury process is being used to stifle free speech in this case.
5. The judge seals the Reason/IJ amicus brief, giving the reason that he's afraid that people might read it.
How does the first amendment not apply here? It really doesn't get a whole lot more cut and dried than thism folks. If the first amendment doesn't protect your right to speak up in public about an issue of prosecutorial misconduct, or even talk about the act of talking about prosecutorial misconduct, then what does it protect?
Think, then speak.
On the post: Free Speech Isn't Free: Court Barring Access To Brief About Free Speech
Update from Reason.com
The Chilling Effect of Grand Jury Subpoenas (and Secrecy)
The article also notes that the sealed document was uploaded to Scribd, but since I can't get there from my work computer, I am unable search for it and post a link. Perhaps some enterprising individual not behind a corporate blockade can dig it out for us.
On the post: Electrical Shocks To Your Head Can Improve Your Math Skills?
Perfect!
On the post: US Patent Office Makes It Harder To Reject Patents For Obviousness
Re: Money, money, money
In a "pure" capitalist society, the government wouldn't be propping up the failing business models of private industry through the use of their legislative powers, which is the situation we have now.
The system in place is corporatist, not capitalist. Big difference.
On the post: US Patent Office Makes It Harder To Reject Patents For Obviousness
Is your summary correct?
Next >>