> That's why you get so many situations where > the cop shoots first and asks questions > later...you know, for their "safety".
If it's a question between my safety and some shitbag whipping rocks at me, or shooting at me, or whatever the hell they're trying to do to me, you better believe Iím going to consider my safety paramount over theirs.
That's legally non-sensical. If you have the legal justification to use deadly force to defend yourself, then you can use *any* tool available to accomplish that.
If someone's shooting at you while you're in your car, you can use the car as a weapon to defend yourself. If someone breaks into your home a threatens you with a knife, the law doesn't require you to only defend yourself with a knife. You can shoot the guy, you can beat him with a baseball bat, you can throw a jar of acid at him, you can use whatever you have at hand.
And on a more practical note, this new policy basically neuters and renders moot the entire purpose of having border guards in the first place. When the illegals learn that all they have to do to get the Border Patrol to back off is chunk a rock at them-- that the BP is required to run away when that happens-- then every attempted interdiction will result in rock-throwing and retreat by the BP and the illegals will just waltz on in. Might as well just throw open the borders and let anyone wander on in rather than enforce the laws of the U.S. Sounds suspiciously like the exact goals of the open-borders crowd, which is what's probably the driving force behind this idiocy. Can't get open-borders and amnesty legislation passed in Congress? Why not do an end-run around Congress, neuter the Border Patrol, and accomplish the same thing without any political fight?
> The museum has a strict "no photography" policy > which means that any photos of David are controlled > by the museum.
Not really. If you violate their policy, you can be trespassed and told to leave, and maybe fined, but your violation of museum policy doesn't give the museum control of the photo you took. You still own that.
> seeking to wipe an entire company completely > off the face of the internet for daring to > do something that's basically legal in similar > realms
More like seeking to wipe an entire company off the internet for daring to follow the laws of its own country instead of the laws of a country on the other side of the planet; laws which it is actually under no legal obligation to follow-- no matter what this self-important federal judge thinks.
A Chinese company, based in China, with no presence in the United States does not suddenly become subject to U.S. law and forbidden to do things that are allowed under Chinese laws merely because it puts a website up on the internet.
This is the most ridiculous LEO response policy. Rocks are deadly weapons. The fact that they're primitive weapons doesn't make them any less deadly.
How many rocks does an agent have to endure being hurled at him while he's "moving away"?
To those on the committee who advocate this rule, why don't you stand 10 feet from me, let me start whipping rocks at your head, and see how many hits I can score before you "move away" enough that I can't hit you anymore.
> As has been pointed out by former CIA guy Barry Eisler, > Snowden did not break his "oath." The "oath" you sign > is to protect the Constitution, not to protect secrecy.
Actually, this is not quite true. The general oath that all government employees take is to protect and defend the Constitution, however, when you are read into a classified program, you take and sign a separate oath, which does indeed include a promise to never divulge or make public the information you have access to.
While Keurig's actions may be shitty and annoying, I don't get the basis for the lawsuit against them. It's not like one has a general legal obligation to design one's products in such a way that makes it easy for others to compete with them. Keurig can't stop someone from designing and selling coffee packs that work with their machines, but neither are they obligated to design their machines to make it easy for others to do so.
So it brings me back to my original comment: It's really not the proper role of government to even be asking these questions or gathering data on how private news entities run their businesses.
Not only that, since the FCC has no jurisdiction whatsoever over newspapers, it's especially inappropriate for them to be inserting themselves into their business, no matter how benign they claim to be.
> In fact they're required to gather much of this > data by the Communications Act
That only raises the "Nunya business" response up one level from the FCC to Congress.
> and the survey was honestly driven by one > commissioner's genuine interest in helping > minorities and the poor get a leg up.
Good intentions don't make a government overreach any less of an overreach.
Bottom line - there's no valid reason for the government to need to know the "editorial philosophy" (or much of the other things they asked) of any newsroom, whether print or broadcast, or cable.
I don't believe the FCC was planning some kind of politburo-style takeover of American news media or anything, but this is just one more example of the government nosing itself into people's private business where it doesn't belong.
> It's a fairly routine and entirely voluntary field survey > designed to gather data.
Why does this data even need to be gathered in the first place? Whether you believe in the black helicopters or not, it's a valid question why the government feels it needs to know these things at all.
It's really not the proper role of government to even be asking these questions or gathering data on how private news entities run their businesses.
Re: I see this shit-storm as only escalated even more.
> Why do you feel compelled to constantly censor [which is illegal > and against the constitution of the United States, i might add]
It's actually neither illegal nor a violation of the Constitution.
Censoring, banning, blocking, etc. on a private forum, whether web-based or real world not only isn't illegal, it's a protected right of the person who owns the forum. It may be a dick move, and a bad idea from a customer-relations standpoint, but it's perfectly legal.
As for the Constitution, it only protects citizens against censorship by the *government*, not web forum moderators. The Constitution has nothing to do with any of this.
> Still though, its really unnerving how > this ugly little program can go crawling > through your files, sending god knows what > back to Valve
How is it that these commercial companies can routinely implement and distribute software that essentially 'hacks' the computers of every customer that uses it, but the moment any Average Joe even downloads 'too much' stuff from a web site that gives it away for free, he's suddenly facing 30 years in a federal ass-raping prison for violating the CFAA?
This is ridiculous. If someone's in a hostile foreign country, plotting attacks on America, Americans, or American troops in a theater of war, then that person is a valid and legitimate military target regardless of the passport he's carrying in his back pocket.
Requiring soldiers on the battlefield to make evidentiary determinations or run out and quickly read the enemy his Miranda warning before engaging him is something out of a Monty Python sketch.
And what the hell is the relevance of objecting to drones? Why does it make any difference whether a drone drops a bomb or whether that same bomb is dropped by a fighter jet piloted by person? The end result is exactly the same. This fixation some people have on drone use is bizarre.
> commercials last weekend had a few ads that > demonstrate (again) that people will actually > want to watch commercials if they're done properly.
I've never had a problem giving most commercials a look. Most people don't. It's the endless repetition of the same commercials over and over and over again that drives people insane. One you see an ad once-- even a clever one-- you really don't need (or want) to see it again, let alone two hundred more times.
Even the best of these Super Bowl commercials will be FFWed over by remote-wielding DVR owners within days of their football game debut.