... for example, what if it was revealed that all of the patrons in the dinner services were actually paid actors who had been prepped to either like or dislike the foot? How would that affect one's enjoyment of the show?
If I had to guess, the reason for the quash is that the producers don't want details of the show's production to be revealed. Everybody knows that the producers of these shows edit things together and otherwise manipulate the outcome, but kind of like pro wrestling used to be--we all kind of ignore it in the interest of being entertained. If details of the manipulation come out, such as, "the producers planted those spoiled veggies," or what-have-you, it may ruin the viewer's ability to suspend disbelief. Even though Amy has zero credibility, reality show producers aren't exactly high on the list of trustworthy people, and the things she may reveal may ring true enough to hurt the show.
Yes, but your gas car is also always making the same amount of waste heat, even when you don't coincidentally need it for heating. Whereas an electric car only spends energy on heating when you actually require it. Your comment is like saying that you set your home climate control to 85 degrees and then open the windows if it gets too hot.
In other news: different cultures find different things offensive, and respond to them in different ways. Like a bunch of morons signing a petition to have Piers Morgan deported. Or absolutely nobody in America carrying any games where the protagonist is a mujahideen.
That is demonstrably false. He sought permission, albeit from the wrong authorities.
Funny. I called the DMV and asked them if it was okay to speed on the highway, and the person I talked to said yes, but somehow, the officer who arrested me didn't get the memo. Also: It has been reported that the producers asked the DC police for permission and had it denied. So the ATF said yes and the DC police said no.
Did David Gregory (or really the producers or assistants who got the clip for him) acquire the clip for illegal purposes? No?
The law contains no provision that the prohibited items be used for illegal purposes. Mere possession of the item is, in and of itself, an illegal act. And, for the record, I think that's stupid, and I disagree with that law. But it's undeniably clear that, assuming the magazine was real and not a "dummy" prop (empty sheet metal, for example), Gregory broke the law. And the reason I'm crying "hypocrisy" on Gregory even though I don't agree with the law is that, if I was in DC, and I was stopped for a traffic violation, and the officer saw the same magazine on my passenger seat, I would get ZERO leeway because it was "for educational purposes" or what have you. Gregory is only getting as much leeway as he is getting because he is famous, which highlights the "laws for Us and laws for Them" nature of American justice.
It has been reported that the producers asked the DC police for permission and had it denied. If that's true, then someone willingly broke the law.
The genius behind this site most likely hasn't verified the ages of any of his victims and well CP charges go over poorly.
Even if the victims happen to be over 18, I have known people who worked in porn before, and the recordkeeping requirements with regard to age verification/documentation are incredibly strict. I'm not an expert on the topic, so there may be some legal loophole this person is sneaking through, but my guess would be that he's definitely breaking the law.
I don't think you had an agenda. I think you ignorantly parroted FUD created by people who have an agenda. EXACTLY like when a journalist says, "copyright theft" or confuses trademark law with copyright with patent. And these things DO matter, no matter how trivial they might seem to those on the outside of the issue. So guns isn't your issue. Fine. Surely you can understand the parallels though.
You're so dumb, you don't even know how dumb you are. "Military load cartridge"? What does that even mean? The intermediate cartridges fired by infantry in modern armies are smaller, less powerful, and have less range than the typical cartridges used for hunting deer.
Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. "Assault rifle" has a very specific definition, one quality of which is that the weapon is select-fire. "Assault weapon" is a bullshit made-up term, that anti-gunners created in order to confuse the public and conflate regular, semi-automatic rifles with true, military-grade assault rifles. And it worked. The analogy to "IP theft" and "copyright infringement" is 100% on the mark.
Also, to the author: this is not a "military grade" weapon because it is not select-fire. It is functionally equivalent to your apocryphal father's deer rifle.
I think there's another analogy that fits Ari's side more closely, although it took me a while to come up with it.
I took the "roads" analogy literally, and thought of the DOT, which regulates private activity on the roads. But that's no good, because Google is not a regulatory agency in any sense.
So what's an example of a private entity--a carrier, if you will--that has legal requirements with regard to the content that it carries? Well, you could argue that UPS is legally required to report contraband if it becomes aware of it, right? Granted, UPS is a carrier, and Google is technically a directory, but I think that line gets a bit blurred on the Internet.
Now, of course, we're back to the child porn analogy, and Mike's response is sound. I think the whole, "roads" analogy is flawed, though, and I don't blame Ari for seeing it differently than we do.
Also, it just irritates the piss out of me when I hear someone blathering about OH NOES A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON THE HORRORS. It's as if they're saying, "Oh noes! A fuel injected car! The horrors!" I just roll my eyes. But in Mike's case, I want him to be better than that.
I think that it does matter, or I wouldn't have said anything. I agree that the inaccurate reporting about the gun is secondary to the civil rights violation that occurred when he was arrested. Nevertheless, it just goes back to basic reporting: get the facts right. This is an important fact that has been reported incorrectly, and it has serious legal and political implications. That those implications are not directly relevant to the blog's domain doesn't make them less serious.
He saw police in the station carrying semi-automatic weapons (an unfortunately common site in Penn Station), and he decided to photograph them with his phone.
I wish that Firearms 101 was a part of every journalist's basic education.
Semi-automatic weapons are simply weapons that load the next round without any action from the user when a round is fired. In other words, a pump-action shotgun is not semiauto, because you have to rack the slide after firing to load the next round. A lever-action rifle is not semiauto because you have to work the lever. A bolt-action rifle is not semiauto... etc...
Every. Single. Pistol. That you see a police officer carrying in the US is semiauto. Every. Single. Police. Officer. That you see in the US is carrying a semiauto weapon in their belt holster.
Now, I realize that you are just parroting what the original source said, but that's no excuse. If he said they were carrying knives and it was obvious they actually had guns, you would probably point out that he was mistaken. If he said they were from SFPD but they were really State Patrol, you might point that out.
Why does this matter? Because misconceptions about guns factor into what laws get passed. Want to pass a law restricting the possession of semiautomatic firearms? Hell yes! It's got the word "auto" in it. That must be bad, right? Wrong. Automatic weapons, which fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger, are a whole different beast, legally, and functionally, from semiauto ones, which are the bread and butter of all modern firearms. This is exactly like when people confuse trademark, patent, and copyright law, and people like Mike speak out vehemently to clarify the confusion, because it matters when confused people try to mis-apply the law, or, worse yet, pass new laws based on mis-understanding of the facts.
Please update the article with a correct. Thank you.