Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater can be prosecuted if it causes a panic or or is deemed by the court to have been likely to do so. Claiming it's the consequences themselves which are prosecuted is blindingly stupid, since that means you'd prosecute the people who panic, but not the person who's yelling fire caused the panic which is both a) totally stupid and b) not anything like what Douglas says. Douglas' position is CLEARLY that some instances of speech are criminal
(2) Yelling something that could cause a panic and result in people dying is the very definition of saying something that would incite "imminent lawless action". According to Brandenburg v. Ohio you're not allowed to say something that you know or should reasonably believe will start a riot. How can you think that would allow you to start a riot in a theater by yelling "fire" when there is none? That's exactly the sort of case the court rules isn't permissible speech.
(2) Technically, only the decision itself is law. Even the majority opinion is just dictum. But that's irrelevant since YOU said: "The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio" and the only place this example is mentioned in the entire case is in Douglas' concurring opinion. So even if Douglas had said what you think he says (of course he doesn't say this) it wouldn't matter because, as you point out, concurring opinions aren't law. So by your own "reasoning" shouting fire in a crowded theater is not upheld in the case since concurring opinions don't carry legal force. And that's again ignoring the fact that his decision doesn't say what you say it does.
So let's review: You're wrong in your interpretation of Douglas' concurring opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio (the only place in that case where this example is broached) and, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong since concurring opinions aren't law.
"The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.
The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.
This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt [p457] acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. [n3]"
What he says is that speech and action are inseparable in the case of of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, meaning that such an action is prosecutable.
So in short, you're totally wrong.
It turns out only SOME of the things the Pope says are the infallible word of God.
And how do we know the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra? Because God said so? No? Because some people made it up 140 years ago? Yeah. Well I now dictate that I'm infallible when speaking "en slashdotia". Beware.
Last-hitting your own creeps is something that adds strategic depth and skill to the game. It makes laning much more competitive.
The reason casters don't scale late game is because they're extremely powerful early game. A hero like Pyromancer or Thunderbringer can kill half the heroes in the game with their spell combinations early to mid game. If there were no late game downside to picking heroes like this none would pick anything else.
And ranged heroes do get lifesteal, so I don't know where you got this idea.
The point of taking notes is to compress the information into a salient outline structure and then insert only the most important information. Just copying, verbatim, what a professor says isn't, in any real sense, "note taking". Note taking implies that you're selectively recording the parts of what the professor is saying that are most important. Just copying down everything is something else entirely, and is dreadfully inefficient, first because you can easily get the jist of what someone says without recording their exact wording, and second because it makes reviewing the notes mostly a waste of time.
What good are science and mathematics? Well, some of it has practical application. But the main reason people study those things is that they find them interesting. People don't become scientists or mathematicians for "the good" of anything, they just do it because it's interesting. It just happens to have useful side effects down the line. So it is with philosophy which, as you mention, produced those fields. So by the transitive property, philosophy is useful insofar is it allowed the production of fields like science and math. Not to mention that the fundamentals of both science and math are still philosophical issues. Science is nothing without interpretation, and interpretation of scientific results is just metaphysics.
>Before someone responds with the boring and done arguments, my initial goal in college was to become a philosophy professor. It was then I realized it ahs nothing new to offer the world. Even the most basic philosophy question have been answered.
That might have been your goal, but from your post I'm not sure it was ever a serious option for you. It would be like me saying the reason I'm not a professional soccer player is that "I realized it has nothing to offer the world" rather than the actual reason, which is that I wasn't good at it. I suspect similar is the case here.
>Which came first, chicken or the egg? Evolution has taught is it was the egg.
Actually, if evolution has taught us anything this question, it's that was the chicken. But since this is your idea of a 'philosophical question' your failure to ascend to a post in academic philosophy is, as I mentioned, unsurprising. This may shock you, but it's quite hard to become a philosopher. Getting into Harvard law school is a joke compared to getting into a top philosophy grad school in terms of intellectual talent required.
>If yopu walk towards something, but only half the remaining difference, will you ever get there: Quantum mechanics has shown us that, yes, we would get there because there is a smallest distance that can be moved.
Your idea of serious philosophical problems are "which came first, the chicken or the egg" and the sophistical paradoxes of Zeno, which were refuted as soon as he produced them?
>These may be interesting papers because they come from a time when philosophy was critical to develop logical, rational, and skeptical questions.
Like I said, the fact that your idea of philosophy is Zeno's paradox and the chicken and egg shows that your understanding of philosophy is quite limited. Contemporary philosophy is, in some respects, quite difficult to differentiate from science. Philosophy of Mind is fully engaged with neuroscience, biology, cognitive science, etc. Even a cursory glance at some of the issues contemporary philosophers work on would show you that this is the case.
P therefore P is always valid, for any value of P. It's trivial, but anything that's trivially true is valid.
P always follow from P. The implication that the Cogito is invalid is just an absurdity. What you might mean is that it's a tautology, but tautologies are always true. The Meditations makes several dozen laughable logical blunders, but this isn't one of them.
The only withdrawals that are often fatal are alcohol withdrawal, benzodiazapine withdrawal, and barbituate withdrawal.
Heroin withdrawal might be the most unpleasant of all, but it isn't all that likely to be fatal as far as I know. I'm sure some people have died due to heroin withdrawal, but it's not a significant risk.