Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, but that's spoken like someone parroting the party line, not someone with experience in both.

Strong typing allows mechanical type checking via compilers and incremental type checkers during the development process.

OK, but A: it only allows type checking and B: it enforces type checking.

A: Type consistency is not a guarentee of correctness. It's not even close to a guarentee of correctness. It's not even more then loosely related to guarentee of correctness. Type 'errors' are only one class of error, and they are detectable in both paradigms, just at different times. Don't skip the focus on "unit-test based testing"; the point of unit-based testing is that it tests for any kind of error you can program a test case for, including type errors, wrong-output for input, environment interaction, and all the other kinds of non-type errors that happen in real life. Unit-test based programming says why pay so much for such a weak guarentee of correctness when you can spend that time writing unit tests and test for useful properties?

Note that XP calls for unit testing in all languages, not just dynamic ones. You need to be writing them anyhow; why not lean on them and keep your program flexible and tested correct, rather then "proven type correct"?

B: It enforces type consistency. How many times have you wanted to jump out of the type cage? When programming in a dynamically (not really 'weakly') typed language, it encourages an "interface based" style. If you implement an object that has all the necessary methods, and it'll work right, why shouldn't you be able to use it just because it's not the right "type"? Many, many things in Python present a file-like interface, or a string-like interface, or a sequence-like interface, without having to inherit from the official implementations which may be very wrong for their purposes. And many other parts of the language do that too.

And guess what? Even in large programs, the world does not come to an end. See unit-testing, although even without that it's still usually OK.

Because the interface style pervades the whole language, you get to easily write programs that can handle certain types of "type" violations without blowing themselves to smithereens like you might expect if you've never tried it before.

On the other hand, since it is not possible to mechanically check weak typed code, weak typing places much more load on the programmer to make sure the types are correct than a strongly typed system.

Two more things:

One, my experience and the experience of a lot of others says the opposite. You spend an unbelievable amount of time jumping through compiler hoops in a static typed language, and sometimes the smallest change cascades down your entire static hierarchy. You spend a lot of time worrying about things that really aren't importent in the grand scheme of things. Half the time if you're trying to write with any sort of flexible pattern like Iterator or something you end up with a superclass called "Iterable" or "Object" (sound familiar?) or some equivalent, which isn't that far from dynamic typing anyhow.

The other thing is again, "mechanically checking" code isn't possible for anything but type-correctness. No other goodness properties can be checked that way; in fact Rice's theorem proves no non-trivial property of programs can be proven mechanically. (This implies type correctness is not an interesting property ;-) )

If type safety could give me something above and beyond type safety, I might be interested. But all it does is "prevent" a class of problems that don't exactly plague most coders anyhow. It's an incredibly steep price to pay for something that doesn't do much for you.

I've experienced both sides of this. Sure, in theory type checking is great, but in practice, the dangers of type errors are incredibly exaggerated. It's just not a problem. It's too late to convince me with theory that has completely failed to play out the way the the type-safety advocates said it would.

• Idealist- Laws are supposed to be good. In a democracy, laws should reflect the will of the people. The most straightforward and honest course is fix laws that are broken. Not promot a disrepect for the law.
• Pragmatic- The government can crush you. They have nigh absolute power of physical coercion, which can be translated into technical control of the internet. (Lessig put it more gently, paraphrase "The internet is an artificial place, governed by laws that are artificial and changeable, not natural and immutable. Given motivation, mankind will change those laws. Do not assume the internet will always look like it does today.")
  If your "atacking dogs" use encryption and p2p to widely violate laws, legislatures will decide those technologies are dangerous criminal tools, and will ban them. (Note- widespread civil disobedience may be an effective tool to change laws, but it's more effective if done in public, unencrypted)

• He's a lawyer- when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/RWB/ has a good implementation of such a tabletop projection system.

The setup, as apparent from the photos consists of a horizontally mounted projector, which projects onto a mirror reflecting to a frosted-glass top surface.

The advantage over a top mounted projector is that you don't have to worry about shadows from your head/arms/objects blocking the projected image. The disadvantage is that you need a specially designed translucent countertop.

Quick book plug for people interested in this issue.

Lawrence Lessig had this topic as a major theme of his book "The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World."

The book is a good read to get a feel for Lessig's ideas about copyright, the Public Domain, and other commons. It was written while the Eldred case was still winding its way through the courts, so that section is now a bit dated (but his blog can get you up to date on the case, which was lost on appeal in the supreme court).

...the USB key stuck in the back looks like a likely point of failure.

Conceivably. Anyone who is running one of these drives without backups somewhere is even more insane than the folks running un-encrypted drives without backups. The backups themselves can easily be encrypted, so there's no need for major security risk. If your key dongles stop working or your drive fries, you'd better have some way of getting the bits back from outside, 'cause they're not coming from the platter.

OTOH, what is "64-bit/ 40-bit DES" supposed to be? Presumably this means the drive supports "40-bit watered-down DES keys" and "64-bit normal DES blocks". So I guess I'm wrong: this drive is designed to be break-inable in an emergency. Great. I'll wait until they offer 3DES or AES-128 options, thanks.

In the meantime, check out the BSD Cryptographic disk driver cgd: SW on-disk encryption at the block level.

1. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Deer is a play on The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks.

2. I can't believe that this article doesn't mention William C. Dement. He's basically the father of modern sleep research.

..otherwise one is forced to consider the ludicrous situation of one being forbidden to sequence one's own DNA,

If Knuth had believed that the way you're making it look, he'd never have written The Art of Programming.

Oh, please. Knuth is also a strong advocate of Literate Programming, the notion that code should be treated first as a piece of literature.

There's nothing inconsistent here. Nobody, not me, not Knuth, not Fowler, is avocating stupid programming. Yes, you should be a master of algorithms, and yes, you should design so that later optimization is possible. But that shouldn't get in the way of writing clear, readable code except when you have the numbers to prove that performance is a real-world issue.

And I will assert boldly that most of the optimization people do without profiling first is just a waste of money. I've never had to throw out inherited code just because it was too slow. Instead, the stuff I chuck is because it's too big a pain to work on.

Helioseismology has matured to the point that it can be used to image the far side of the sun", which is impressive, considering the sun is 1.4 million kilometers in diameter. SOHO strikes again.

For support for elimitating copyrights or greatly reducing their terms, see Richard Stallman, especially here:
http://www.memes.net/index.php3?request=displaypag e&NodeID=650

and also Brian Martin's essay "Against intellectual property" (part of a large book -- _Information Liberation_)
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/i l03.html

You can also see lots of ongoing discussion on Lawrence Lessig's blog http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/ which I have been posting at specifically in this Doc's diagnosis topic comments section here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?en try_id=889

For support for elimitating copyrights or greatly reducing their terms, see Richard Stallman, especially here:
http://www.memes.net/index.php3?request=displaypag e&NodeID=650

and also Brian Martin's essay "Against intellectual property" (part of a large book -- _Information Liberation_)
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/i l03.html

You can also see lots of ongoing discussion on Lawrence Lessig's blog http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/ which I have been posting at specifically in this Doc's diagnosis topic comments section here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?en try_id=889

For support for elimitating copyrights or greatly reducing their terms, see Richard Stallman, especially here:
http://www.memes.net/index.php3?request=displaypag e&NodeID=650

and also Brian Martin's essay "Against intellectual property" (part of a large book -- _Information Liberation_)
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/i l03.html

You can also see lots of ongoing discussion on Lawrence Lessig's blog http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/ which I have been posting at specifically in this Doc's diagnosis topic comments section here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?en try_id=889

and also Brian Martin's essay "Against intellectual property" (part of a large book -- _Information Liberation_)
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/i l03.html

You can also see lots of ongoing discussion on Lawrence Lessig's blog http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/ which I have been posting at specifically in this Doc's diagnosis topic comments section here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?en try_id=889

and also Brian Martin's essay "Against intellectual property" (part of a large book -- _Information Liberation_)
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/i l03.html

You can also see lots of ongoing discussion on Lawrence Lessig's blog http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/ which I have been posting at specifically in this Doc's diagnosis topic comments section here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?en try_id=889

and also Brian Martin's essay "Against intellectual property" (part of a large book -- _Information Liberation_)
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/i l03.html

You can also see lots of ongoing discussion on Lawrence Lessig's blog http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/ which I have been posting at specifically in this Doc's diagnosis topic comments section here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?en try_id=889

I won't research for you, but if you're interested, the preprints archive at LANL has a lot of relevant theory. Basically, the current research is trying to come with a unified framework for so-called "phase transitions" in stochastic discrete processes. One of the most studied problems is the transition between "easy" and "hard" problems in 3-SAT (three-satisfiability). Brian Hayes has a very readable article about this phenomenon, with references. The authority in this field seems to be Gabriel Istrate.

The emergence of the giant component in random networks is a mature field of research, of course pioneered by Erdös, and with players of the likes of Don Knuth and Doron Zeilberger.

From a mathematical standpoint, Graph Theory per se is not really complicated, what actually is is the asymptotic analysis of stochastic processes.

HTH,
Matas

Okay, I'll byte. Once good AC deserves another, and I'm bored...

The key behind 'science' is the ability to test. You come up with a theory, and there will be some way, even if only hypothetically, that the theory can be proven wrong. A theory is not widely considered to be true until it is proven, but more theories can be based on it under the presumption that it is (sorta like read-ahead caching)

The key here is that it's always possible that it's wrong. This is called falsifiability. Something cannot be true unless it's possible to think of a way that is might be false. It sounds like a paradox, but the idea is that the theory will hold against any evidence brought against it, even when that evidence is thought to prove it wrong.

Religion is not falsifiable, unless you can give me a reasonable test that could prove God does not exist (and this prove the "theory" wrong)... which I assume is the root of your argument: That evolution is false because God created everything.

As for evolution being testable, some people are doing a great job of it. So far the theory has held up as expected.

And let's not forget the unintentional proofs, like antibiotic resistant bacteria

Just because your pet cat never give birth to a litter of dogs is not exactly reason to say evolution is bunk. Maybe if you understood the concept and the theory a little better you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.
--

More details
Appeared in FSE 2002. Finds funny bugs by looking for redundant operations (dead code, unused assignments, etc.). From empirical measurements, code with such redundant errors is 50-100% more likely to have hard errors. Also describes how to check for redundancies to find holes in specifications.

Link to PostScript file for easy viewing/printing
File

Episode II was shot entirely on digital cameras, which don't have anywhere near the bit depth supported by EXR. As always, GIGO.

As someone above pointed out, most languages (even the LISP I championed earlier) are written in C.

Sometimes I feel very, very old. This one reminds me about Zaphod Beeblebrox and the accident with the contraceptive and the time machine. LISP was written in 1958, one of the oldest high level languages for programming. BCPL (on which C is based) was written in 1967, and C was written in 1971. So are you trying to tell me that John McCarthy wrote LISP in a language which wasn't even going to be devised for another twenty three years? That was extremely clever of him.

As someone above pointed out, most languages (even the LISP I championed earlier) are written in C.

Sometimes I feel very, very old. This one reminds me about Zaphod Beeblebrox and the accident with the contraceptive and the time machine. LISP was written in 1958, one of the oldest high level languages for programming. BCPL (on which C is based) was written in 1967, and C was written in 1971. So are you trying to tell me that John McCarthy wrote LISP in a language which wasn't even going to be devised for another twenty three years? That was extremely clever of him.

Just in case you think I'm kidding about the 'Happy Birthday' bit see "The song "Happy Birthday to You" is protected by copyright.", Lessig Blog on the 'Happy Birthday' song

See also this page for descriptions of several GPS-based aviation-related projects that will be deployed within the next few years. Sole means is still a ways off, but it's coming sooner or later.

A very cool instance of the duality has been under research at Stanford, in Dawson Engler's group. They look at kernel "rules" as a programming language, and then they run a compiler checker on it to catch semantic bugs.

For example, lots of cases where locks where aquired but never released, or aquired twice in sequence in the Linux kernel were identified by considering the sequence "lock(x); ...; relase(x);" as a language construct, and then looking for device drivers or modules that didn't abide by it.

I believe there was a Linux kernel subversion named after these guys, for finding a gazillion deadlocks and such bugs in an automatic fashion.

Take a look at their first paper on this.

They have a whole slew of updates to this at
Engler's web page. I believe there's a similar project at Berkeley as well.

Cheers,

bauzeau

A very cool instance of the duality has been under research at Stanford, in Dawson Engler's group. They look at kernel "rules" as a programming language, and then they run a compiler checker on it to catch semantic bugs.

For example, lots of cases where locks where aquired but never released, or aquired twice in sequence in the Linux kernel were identified by considering the sequence "lock(x); ...; relase(x);" as a language construct, and then looking for device drivers or modules that didn't abide by it.

I believe there was a Linux kernel subversion named after these guys, for finding a gazillion deadlocks and such bugs in an automatic fashion.

Take a look at their first paper on this.

They have a whole slew of updates to this at
Engler's web page. I believe there's a similar project at Berkeley as well.

Cheers,

bauzeau

We're talking about more money than you probably think.

According to Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion, only 2% of copyrighted works between 55 and 75 years old retain commercial value, but that that 2% is conservatively estimated to bring in $400 million a year in revenues to the copyright holders.

That's billions over the next 20 years.

Even Knuth, who is the source of the statement "Premature optimization is the root of all evil.", will be covering these topics (known as "bit fiddling") in his upcoming volume 4A. Until that volume is published, which may be quite a while from now, I'd say Hacker's Delight covers the topic very well.

So I've got to go get onto a plane to go to my least favorite city (DC). My inbox is filling with kind emails from friends. Also with a few of a different flavor. It's my nature to identify most closely with those of the different flavor. David Gossett at the law firm of Mayer Brown wrote Declan, "Larry lost Eldred, 7-2." Yes, no matter what is said, that is how I will always view this case. The constitutional question is not even close. To have failed to get the Court to see it is my failing.

It has often been said that movements gain by losing in the Supreme Court. Some feminists say it would have been better to lose Roe, because that would have built a movement in response. I have often wondered whether it would ever be possible to lose a case and yet smell victory in the defeat. I'm not yet convinced it's possible. But if there is any good that might come from my loss, let it be the anger and passion that now gets to swell against the unchecked power that the Supreme Court has said Congress has. When the Free Software Foundation, Intel, Phillis Schlafly, Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, Kenneth Arrow, Brewster Kahle, and hundreds of creators and innovators all stand on one side saying, "this makes no sense," then it makes no sense. Let that be enough to move people to do something about it. Our courts will not.

I will always be grateful to Eric Eldred, and our other plaintiffs, for putting his faith in this case. I will always regret not being able to meet that faith with the success it deserves.

What the Framers of our constitution did is not enough. We must do more.

posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 1:31 AM ] to [ eldred.cc ] [ 12 comments ]

the opinions

There were three opinions. The majority was written by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Stevens wrote a dissent, as did Justice Breyer.

posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 12:42 AM ] to [ eldred.cc ]

with deep sadness

The Supreme Court has rejected our challenge to the Sonny Bono Law.

posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 12:09 AM ] to [ bad law ]

So I've got to go get onto a plane to go to my least favorite city (DC). My inbox is filling with kind emails from friends. Also with a few of a different flavor. It's my nature to identify most closely with those of the different flavor. David Gossett at the law firm of Mayer Brown wrote Declan, "Larry lost Eldred, 7-2." Yes, no matter what is said, that is how I will always view this case. The constitutional question is not even close. To have failed to get the Court to see it is my failing.

It has often been said that movements gain by losing in the Supreme Court. Some feminists say it would have been better to lose Roe, because that would have built a movement in response. I have often wondered whether it would ever be possible to lose a case and yet smell victory in the defeat. I'm not yet convinced it's possible. But if there is any good that might come from my loss, let it be the anger and passion that now gets to swell against the unchecked power that the Supreme Court has said Congress has. When the Free Software Foundation, Intel, Phillis Schlafly, Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, Kenneth Arrow, Brewster Kahle, and hundreds of creators and innovators all stand on one side saying, "this makes no sense," then it makes no sense. Let that be enough to move people to do something about it. Our courts will not.

I will always be grateful to Eric Eldred, and our other plaintiffs, for putting his faith in this case. I will always regret not being able to meet that faith with the success it deserves.

What the Framers of our constitution did is not enough. We must do more.

posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 1:31 AM ] to [ eldred.cc ] [ 12 comments ]

the opinions

There were three opinions. The majority was written by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Stevens wrote a dissent, as did Justice Breyer.

posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 12:42 AM ] to [ eldred.cc ]

with deep sadness

The Supreme Court has rejected our challenge to the Sonny Bono Law.

posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 12:09 AM ] to [ bad law ]

So I've got to go get onto a plane to go to my least favorite city (DC). My inbox is filling with kind emails from friends. Also with a few of a different flavor. It's my nature to identify most closely with those of the different flavor. David Gossett at the law firm of Mayer Brown wrote Declan, "Larry lost Eldred, 7-2." Yes, no matter what is said, that is how I will always view this case. The constitutional question is not even close. To have failed to get the Court to see it is my failing.

It has often been said that movements gain by losing in the Supreme Court. Some feminists say it would have been better to lose Roe, because that would have built a movement in response. I have often wondered whether it would ever be possible to lose a case and yet smell victory in the defeat. I'm not yet convinced it's possible. But if there is any good that might come from my loss, let it be the anger and passion that now gets to swell against the unchecked power that the Supreme Court has said Congress has. When the Free Software Foundation, Intel, Phillis Schlafly, Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, Kenneth Arrow, Brewster Kahle, and hundreds of creators and innovators all stand on one side saying, "this makes no sense," then it makes no sense. Let that be enough to move people to do something about it. Our courts will not.

I will always be grateful to Eric Eldred, and our other plaintiffs, for putting his faith in this case. I will always regret not being able to meet that faith with the success it deserves.

What the Framers of our constitution did is not enough. We must do more.

posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 1:31 AM ] to [ eldred.cc ] [ 12 comments ]

the opinions

There were three opinions. The majority was written by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Stevens wrote a dissent, as did Justice Breyer.

posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 12:42 AM ] to [ eldred.cc ]

with deep sadness

The Supreme Court has rejected our challenge to the Sonny Bono Law.

posted on [ Jan 16 03 at 12:09 AM ] to [ bad law ]

I work for a nonprofit, so my science fiction writing income actually accounts for a substantial chunk of my living.

I have never written an "original" word in my life. Every idea I've had has been inspired by those who came before me. I just released my first novel, both as a hardcover book and an ebook under the terms of a Creative Commons license. The novel is set in Walt Disney World, and revolves around the efforts of preservationists in a transhuman future who strive to keep the rides true to the original Imagineers' intent.

I take a lot of flak for my genuine admiration for the Disney Parks and films -- people want to know why I've thrown my lot in with the corporate crooks who've stolen the public domain out from under us. The fact of the matter is that Walt Disney is the poster child for the public domain. Walt's greatest works were built by taking off-the-shelf parts and stories and remixing them in novel and useful ways. Lessig notes that Steamboat Willie, the first Mickey cartoon, was a remix of a popular film called "Steamboat Bill." Exploring the bonus material on the latest DVD release of the cartoon shows that not only did Walt thrive on the public domain, but that the Disney Company's interest is in closing off that domain to everyone else:

"Orchestra starts playing opening verses of 'Steamboat Bill.' Try doing a cartoon take-off of one of Disney, Inc.'s latest films with an opening that copies the music, and see how far your Walt Empire gets."

Any artist who claims that her work is 100% original is lying or self-deluded. Art is embedded in culture. Art is a web, and it is enmeshed with the art that came before it and comes after it. Deriding the public domain as the refuge of the unimaginative makes about as much sense as pissing on coders who don't write their own OSes (or invent their own non-Turing, non-Von Neumann, non-non-Von Neumann computing engines, for that matter).

Courtesy of Lessig:


Majority opinion by Ginsburg

Dissent by Stevens

Dissent by Breyer

Courtesy of Lessig:


Majority opinion by Ginsburg

Dissent by Stevens

Dissent by Breyer

Courtesy of Lessig:


Majority opinion by Ginsburg

Dissent by Stevens

Dissent by Breyer

I have read through the majority and am partly through Breyer. The majority seems to indicate that the law is not unconstitutional, but that it may not be the best idea Congress has had. So far, Breyer seems to echo my exact sentiments, that this is indicitive of a perpetual extension and that it impedes rather than promotes the useful arts and sciences.

I have read through the majority and am partly through Breyer. The majority seems to indicate that the law is not unconstitutional, but that it may not be the best idea Congress has had. So far, Breyer seems to echo my exact sentiments, that this is indicitive of a perpetual extension and that it impedes rather than promotes the useful arts and sciences.

I have read through the majority and am partly through Breyer. The majority seems to indicate that the law is not unconstitutional, but that it may not be the best idea Congress has had. So far, Breyer seems to echo my exact sentiments, that this is indicitive of a perpetual extension and that it impedes rather than promotes the useful arts and sciences.

Bryer:

This statute will cause serious expression-related harm. It will likely restrict traditional dissemination of copy-righted works. It will likely inhibit new forms of dissemination through the use of new technology. It threatens to interfere with efforts to preserve our Nation's historical and cultural heritage and efforts to use that heritage, say, to educate our Nation's children. It is easy to understand how the statute might benefit the private financial interests of corporations or heirs who own existing copyrights. But I cannot find any constitutionally legitimate, copyright-related way in which the statute will benefit the public. Indeed, in respect to existing works, the serious public harm and the virtually nonexistent public benefit could not be more clear.

I have set forth the analysis upon which I rest these judgments. This analysis leads inexorably to the conclusion that the statute cannot be understood rationally to advance a constitutionally legitimate interest. The statute falls outside the scope of legislative power that the Copyright Clause, read in light of the First Amendment, grants to Congress. I would hold the statute unconstitutional.

I respectfully dissent.

By failing to protect the public interest in free access to the products of inventive and artistic genius indeed, by virtually ignoring the central purpose of the Copyright/Patent Clause the Court has quitclaimed to Con gress its principal responsibility in this area of the law. Fairly read, the Court has stated that Congress actions under the Copyright/Patent Clause are, for all intents and purposes, judicially unreviewable. That result cannot be squared with the basic tenets of our constitutional structure. It is not hyperbole to recall the trenchant words of Chief Justice John Marshall: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). We should discharge that responsibility as we did in Chadha.

I respectfully dissent.

Dissenting opinion (Stevens): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d.pdf

Dissenting opinion (Breyer): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d1.pdf

Dissenting opinion (Stevens): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d.pdf

Dissenting opinion (Breyer): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d1.pdf

Dissenting opinion (Stevens): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d.pdf

Dissenting opinion (Breyer): http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/ 01-618d1.pdf

Here you go, but they're PDFs...I got the links from Larry Lessig's blog

Majority opinion

Justice Steven's dissent

Justice Breyer's dissent

I wonder how Larry's going to like being /.ed...

Here you go, but they're PDFs...I got the links from Larry Lessig's blog

Majority opinion

Justice Steven's dissent

Justice Breyer's dissent

I wonder how Larry's going to like being /.ed...

Here you go, but they're PDFs...I got the links from Larry Lessig's blog

Majority opinion

Justice Steven's dissent

Justice Breyer's dissent

I wonder how Larry's going to like being /.ed...

Here you go, but they're PDFs...I got the links from Larry Lessig's blog

Majority opinion

Justice Steven's dissent

Justice Breyer's dissent

I wonder how Larry's going to like being /.ed...

To be honest, two Justices is more than I thought the Eldred side could get. While I sympathize with their intent, it would have been a remarkable abrogation of Congressional power for the Court to have struck down the SBCTEA. "Ill-advised and stupid" does not, unfortunately, mean "unconstitutional."

To be honest, two Justices is more than I thought the Eldred side could get. While I sympathize with their intent, it would have been a remarkable abrogation of Congressional power for the Court to have struck down the SBCTEA. "Ill-advised and stupid" does not, unfortunately, mean "unconstitutional."

To be honest, two Justices is more than I thought the Eldred side could get. While I sympathize with their intent, it would have been a remarkable abrogation of Congressional power for the Court to have struck down the SBCTEA. "Ill-advised and stupid" does not, unfortunately, mean "unconstitutional."

See Lessig's Blog

The Majority
Justic Stevens
Justice Breyer

See Lessig's Blog

The Majority
Justic Stevens
Justice Breyer