How can you not see the difference between following a rules list for a team (or behavior in a classroom, for that matter) and a subjugation of a person's Constitutional Rights?
If you agree to do (or not do) something, and then do the opposite, who is in the wrong?
She broke the rules she agreed to in order to be part of that team.
If part of your hiring contract says you'll be fired if you call the boss "Flibbertigibbet" publicly, do you have 1st Amendment grounds to stand on if you're fired for doing so?
Offended? Not at all. Annoyed that we just spent millions in court costs on a case that involved a teenager's petulance? Yup, I am.
There's an amount of decorum required for social interactions. Teenagers aren't exempt from such, but we've always made some exceptions for them, as petulance, snottiess, and rudeness is expected from the immortal, indestructible, omniscient beings that teens feel themselves to be.
She won her court case. But... was she elevated to Varsity? Will her inability to follow simple rules aid or harm her on job applications? Will her willingness to literally make a Federal Case out of not getting her way help or hurt her future?
The school's rule was poorly written, and that particular line of attack in court was foolish.
She was simply not good enough to make Varsity - and as a cheerleader, no less.
So she threw a hissycow about it, possibly unknowing of the rule regarding "negatives" (it's probably like a EULA).
When she was suspended from the squad for doing so, someone decided to bring it to court, and I've got to believe that it was for the purpose of making money off a lawsuit.
Hey, maybe they'll lift the suspension and give her a Varsity standing. And put her right out front where her competence can shine...
Interesting timing, I spent a couple of hours dealing with Spectrum just yesterday.
NY "threw them out". Result: They stayed and jacked the cable bill up $7.00
Last month, they hiked it another $12.00 to cover their "costs of complying with OTA requirements".
Got a letter from them last week that the TV side of my account was going up another $35 due to "unexpected costs incurred". (WTF?)
Call them to see if I could downgrade the TV side. No, I'm on the lowest tier.
Ok, cancel it - I'm not paying $1013 and change a year for NBC News and Jeopardy (all we really watch).
Well, of course, they can't have THAT happen. They offer me "Spectrum TV Choice", OTA channels, music channels, and 10 non-premium networks of my choice - for $12 less than my current bill.
I would have just cancelled it and saved $768/year, but in the interests of domestic tranquility, I had the wife pick ten channels and changed the plan to that.
It took her three HOURS to pick ten channels. Not because she had to pick her favorite ten, but because the first five she picked were "free", the OTA channels, on a second pass she couldn't come up with more than six channels she could even recall having ever watched.
So we bulked it out with four channels we'll probably never watch just to fill the list.
Re: Like a billion $ bouncy-ball, no-one's buying that.
Don't overlook the math there.
They applied to have the retention period lowered to 10 years from the original 25 years.
Then shredded FORTY years of records.
Which means they over-held some records for 15 years longer than originally required at a minimum - it's not clear if the four decades of records referred to the past forty years or forty years prior to the 25 or 10 year retention periods. They may still have had records from 65 years back.
In the BBS days, we'd just chop a section out of an EXE file, encrypt it at the highest key value in PGP with a throwaway, and leave them in a 733t section to annoy anyone wanting 733t access.
...how stupid people are. Phones have been being searched for years. WHY would anyone but a complete moron put criminal evidence on one?
I'd like to say that they'd stop searching them after a year or two of not finding anything, but I've been accosted at the Canadian border because it's apparently illegal to NOT have a cell phone.
Most advanced spying and tracking device ever conceived, and people carry them on purpose. Incredible.
...those of us who have several ad-blockers running and haven't seen an ad in years?
Facebook apparently got around that by injecting them into the user feed a while back, but intelligent people don't use facebook. Then again, intelligent people don't believe adverts, so I guess it's a wash...
Throwing a rock at an "off duty" firefighter is simple assault, and you'd be charged with that if it was a waitress and not a firefighter.
It's a crime against a single person.
If you vandalize a fire hydrant so it can't be used, you're on the same level of "who" your crime is against as if you'd thrown a brick at a firefighter working a fire.
The rationale makes sense. How it's enforced and frequently abused is another matter entirely. And I can't envision any manner in which a "journalist" on or off "duty" can have the same applied.
In the first case, if you throw a brick at a firefighter while they're standing around minding their own business, you get charged with the same as if you'd thrown the brick at the local dog walker.
When you assault that same firefighter while they're fighting a fire, you put the entire neighborhood at risk, so there are additional penalties.
As to protected groups, no. The creation of ANY protected group is obvious discrimination against everyone NOT of that group.
That said, if you're going to create such groups anyway, you need to actually define what constitutes a member.
What makes a journalist? A degree in Journalism? Pay stubs from a News Agency? Owning a cell phone? Web space?
IMO, anyone who claims "Journalist" as their main source of income on their IRS tax paperwork.
On the post: Federal Court Says Teen's 'Fuck Cheer' Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Film at 11...
How can you not see the difference between following a rules list for a team (or behavior in a classroom, for that matter) and a subjugation of a person's Constitutional Rights?
If you agree to do (or not do) something, and then do the opposite, who is in the wrong?
On the post: Federal Court Says Teen's 'Fuck Cheer' Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Film at 11...
She broke the rules she agreed to in order to be part of that team.
If part of your hiring contract says you'll be fired if you call the boss "Flibbertigibbet" publicly, do you have 1st Amendment grounds to stand on if you're fired for doing so?
On the post: Federal Court Says Teen's 'Fuck Cheer' Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Film at 11...
Offended? Not at all. Annoyed that we just spent millions in court costs on a case that involved a teenager's petulance? Yup, I am.
There's an amount of decorum required for social interactions. Teenagers aren't exempt from such, but we've always made some exceptions for them, as petulance, snottiess, and rudeness is expected from the immortal, indestructible, omniscient beings that teens feel themselves to be.
On the post: Federal Court Says Teen's 'Fuck Cheer' Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: Film at 11...
Where did I say it was not her right?
She won her court case. But... was she elevated to Varsity? Will her inability to follow simple rules aid or harm her on job applications? Will her willingness to literally make a Federal Case out of not getting her way help or hurt her future?
The school's rule was poorly written, and that particular line of attack in court was foolish.
She was simply not good enough to make Varsity - and as a cheerleader, no less.
So she threw a hissycow about it, possibly unknowing of the rule regarding "negatives" (it's probably like a EULA).
When she was suspended from the squad for doing so, someone decided to bring it to court, and I've got to believe that it was for the purpose of making money off a lawsuit.
Hey, maybe they'll lift the suspension and give her a Varsity standing. And put her right out front where her competence can shine...
On the post: Federal Court Says Teen's 'Fuck Cheer' Is Protected Speech
Film at 11...
...Petulant Teenager doesn't get her way, throws hissycow, makes Daddy fund court case...
On the post: DOJ Warns Academy That Being An Anti-Streaming Luddite Could Violate Antitrust
Re:
The "his brother was worse" argument? Seriously?
On the post: Wall Street Thinks The Cable TV Sector Could Easily 'Unravel.' That's Probably A Good Thing.
Re: Re: Spectrum
I think so. One of the music channels...
Tupac sings your favorite Sinatra songs...
/s
On the post: Wall Street Thinks The Cable TV Sector Could Easily 'Unravel.' That's Probably A Good Thing.
Spectrum
Interesting timing, I spent a couple of hours dealing with Spectrum just yesterday.
NY "threw them out". Result: They stayed and jacked the cable bill up $7.00
Last month, they hiked it another $12.00 to cover their "costs of complying with OTA requirements".
Got a letter from them last week that the TV side of my account was going up another $35 due to "unexpected costs incurred". (WTF?)
Call them to see if I could downgrade the TV side. No, I'm on the lowest tier.
Ok, cancel it - I'm not paying $1013 and change a year for NBC News and Jeopardy (all we really watch).
Well, of course, they can't have THAT happen. They offer me "Spectrum TV Choice", OTA channels, music channels, and 10 non-premium networks of my choice - for $12 less than my current bill.
I would have just cancelled it and saved $768/year, but in the interests of domestic tranquility, I had the wife pick ten channels and changed the plan to that.
It took her three HOURS to pick ten channels. Not because she had to pick her favorite ten, but because the first five she picked were "free", the OTA channels, on a second pass she couldn't come up with more than six channels she could even recall having ever watched.
So we bulked it out with four channels we'll probably never watch just to fill the list.
On the post: Ariana Grande Demands All Photographers At Her Concerts Transfer Copyright To Her, NPPA Revolts
Re:
It's semi-private, as anyone can buy a ticket.
Invitation-Only events are Private Performances.
Public can require tickets, but have a Public venue.
If you want more than that, talk to an insurance agent who does Events - there's about thirty pages of legalese defining all the types.
On the post: Another California City Allowed Police To Destroy Misconduct Records Ahead Of New Transparency Law
Re: Like a billion $ bouncy-ball, no-one's buying that.
Don't overlook the math there.
They applied to have the retention period lowered to 10 years from the original 25 years.
Then shredded FORTY years of records.
Which means they over-held some records for 15 years longer than originally required at a minimum - it's not clear if the four decades of records referred to the past forty years or forty years prior to the 25 or 10 year retention periods. They may still have had records from 65 years back.
On the post: 7th Circuit Punts On Border Smartphone Searches; Says Riley Decision Doesn't Affect Anything
Re:
The Appellate court will overturn violations of SC rulings on Appeal.
They do NOT like Judges who ignore such rulings, and a Judge may find themselves censured if they continue to rule otherwise.
On the post: Here Comes The Splinternet: How The EU Is Helping Break Apart The Internet
Re: Re:
He's quoting one of Herbert's Bene Gesserit maxims from Dune.
On the post: 7th Circuit Punts On Border Smartphone Searches; Says Riley Decision Doesn't Affect Anything
Re: Re: You've gotta wonder...
"But they don't listen ALL the time!" Gods...
On the post: 7th Circuit Punts On Border Smartphone Searches; Says Riley Decision Doesn't Affect Anything
Re: Numbphile
In the BBS days, we'd just chop a section out of an EXE file, encrypt it at the highest key value in PGP with a throwaway, and leave them in a 733t section to annoy anyone wanting 733t access.
On the post: 7th Circuit Punts On Border Smartphone Searches; Says Riley Decision Doesn't Affect Anything
You've gotta wonder...
...how stupid people are. Phones have been being searched for years. WHY would anyone but a complete moron put criminal evidence on one?
I'd like to say that they'd stop searching them after a year or two of not finding anything, but I've been accosted at the Canadian border because it's apparently illegal to NOT have a cell phone.
Most advanced spying and tracking device ever conceived, and people carry them on purpose. Incredible.
On the post: Police Misconduct Records Show California Police Officer Busting Sober Drivers For DUI
Re: Re: NOT gonna get ugly
Actually, no. It's exactly as tough.
What society terms "good" people don't apply for either job.
On the post: What If Google And Facebook Admitted That All This Ad Targeting Really Doesn't Work That Well?
Re: Doesn't matter to me.
I was brought up the same way, and instilled it in my kids - if it's advertised on TV or through the mail, it's a scam.
On the post: What If Google And Facebook Admitted That All This Ad Targeting Really Doesn't Work That Well?
How about....
...those of us who have several ad-blockers running and haven't seen an ad in years?
Facebook apparently got around that by injecting them into the user feed a while back, but intelligent people don't use facebook. Then again, intelligent people don't believe adverts, so I guess it's a wash...
On the post: Stupid Law Making Assaulting Journalists A Federal Crime Revived By Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
Throwing a rock at an "off duty" firefighter is simple assault, and you'd be charged with that if it was a waitress and not a firefighter.
It's a crime against a single person.
If you vandalize a fire hydrant so it can't be used, you're on the same level of "who" your crime is against as if you'd thrown a brick at a firefighter working a fire.
The rationale makes sense. How it's enforced and frequently abused is another matter entirely. And I can't envision any manner in which a "journalist" on or off "duty" can have the same applied.
On the post: Stupid Law Making Assaulting Journalists A Federal Crime Revived By Congress
Re: Re: Re: Easy way to fix this
In the first case, if you throw a brick at a firefighter while they're standing around minding their own business, you get charged with the same as if you'd thrown the brick at the local dog walker.
When you assault that same firefighter while they're fighting a fire, you put the entire neighborhood at risk, so there are additional penalties.
As to protected groups, no. The creation of ANY protected group is obvious discrimination against everyone NOT of that group.
That said, if you're going to create such groups anyway, you need to actually define what constitutes a member.
What makes a journalist? A degree in Journalism? Pay stubs from a News Agency? Owning a cell phone? Web space?
IMO, anyone who claims "Journalist" as their main source of income on their IRS tax paperwork.
Next >>