[According to SCOTUS] "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution."[1] The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.

Explain this please. My grand conspiracy detectors are malfunctioning today.

Most speed laws are based on some semblance of science. Granted there is often that extra percentage, but it doesn't kill anyone to slow down a little.

"a review of available speed studies demonstrates that the posted speed limit is almost always set well below the 85th-percentile speed by as much as 8 to 12 mph"

Some of this bullshit does cost lives.

Remember, I'm responding to the allegation that laws are specifically designed so that everyone breaks them, not that there is selective targeting.

However...

"I'm responding to the allegation that laws are specifically designed so that everyone breaks them, not that there is selective targeting."

Consider that the selective targeting aspect is far more important than whether the laws were designed so that they facilitate selective targeting, or just happen to facilitate selective targeting. Either way, selective targeting is something that should be avoided.

Yes, this is a stupid law. I hope Obama shit-cans the TSA.

I imagine if that drop were large enough, he'd at least have an argument that he shouldn't need to pay all of the $750k back.

If he's guilty, I wonder if sharesleuth.com will cover it.

Why would news organizations not report it?

Ironically, TC has had the best coverage so far.

The term "breaking news" doesn't mean anything any more because it's so overused. It's like the word unique or the word special.

  14. (v. tr.) To make known, as news: break a story.
  15. (v. intr.) To become known or noticed: The big story broke on Friday.
  (http://www.answers.com/topic/break)

Breaking news is a current event that broadcasters feel warrants the interruption of scheduled programming in order to report its details

Traditionally breaking news is reserved for news deemed important (see previous definition). The problem is, everyone uses it too much, and if too many things are deemed important, nothing is. And we're back to where we started :).

you're not supposed to want to think, you're supposed to want to be able to convey to other people that you're part of the same cult they are by using key phrases while not putting in the effort to actually think, and be mesmerized by the ads while you are skimming well enough to bullshit your way through meaningless pseudo-conversation with other cult members about the headline along the paradigm of choices the puppet-masters create for you.

Of course they should just report headlines. You are the product they sell to their customers (advertisers). You think they care one little bit about informing you of the world as it is? It works out best for everyone except you if they don't. Go back to sleep, watch american gladiators, and don't think about it too much.

I think you're the one that needs to go back to sleep; you've obviously given it more thought than me.

What's american gladiators? You're being factitious right?

He/she is probably making a reference to Bill Hicks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqs9ap3iV-4

How Dennis Miller of him/her.

see you don't want to think, you want me to give you an answer! You are starting to stir, but your next realization needs to be that your desire to read the economist instead of the CNN headlines, and the resultant feeling of superiority are themselves programming delivered the same way through the same mechanisms.

Picture Rupert Murdoch playing with puppet strings attached to education, political, and religious groups talking to an emperor palpatine figure who is the ghost of Edward Barney's, being told, "We'll control the rubes with Fox, and we'll control the slightly smarter rubes with the message 'Well the rubes watching fox are brainwashed, but the source I get my information from is more sophisticated.' which we can imprint on them the same ways. We'll just program them to think they are thinking, as a way to stop them fro actually thinking."

Go back to sleep, it's not as nice when you're always aware of it.

Unfortunately, voice tone doesn't carry over in written communication, and when someone writes with attitude dripping off theirs words it's hard to decipher what they mean.

Go back to sleep, maybe when you wake up you won't be as pretentious.

If I can get you irritated at me by what I say, what makes you think your not being programmed along the same mechanism targeting other emotions, by your literature? The economist writes more words then me. They can hypnotize you and make you react more then I can. If I can change your emotion a little, so can they, and they control you at this point.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=370893

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=366960

Comic gold. Thanks for bringing the hilarity.

Anyways, I actually don't subscribe to the Economist; it was just an example.

Regardless, they're probably controlling me anyway.

At least we both like South Park :).

There was a recent article that said the best way to stop a rumor was to directly address the allegations, regardless of how trivial a rumor was. If that is true, Cuban would have been more effectice if he simply stated that the prosecution would have to prove in court that he did anything wrong, and that he is glad to finally get the chance to settle the matter. Instead, he attacked the prosecutor's motives several times, and denied it only as a last remark. Therefore, it is not surprising that he is getting all this attention.