I also use an Aeron at work... although I didn't know it until I read this comment and googled it.
I love the chair, definitely the best chair I've ever sat in.
But man are they throwing the book against him. I have no love for the frivolous nature of the lawsuits and ridiculous manner he presents his arguments but it sounds like they're really going over the top.
I mean, that list of charges against him reads like every lawyer's trial strategy.
It has come up before, Bay isn't the first to point it out.
Microsoft owns the rights to a likely-to-be industry standard DRM for digital distribution. MS Wins when the world moves to digital distribution, and they have a vested interest in making sure that happens sooner rather than later.
You've earned nothing in regards to citizenship that I have not. Your's and my citizenship is a function of your being born here, the same as anyone else and it's a matter of pure chance. I can only assume that you're referencing your service in the Military, which is commendable but does not under any intelligent circumstance propel you to some elevated class status or citizenship. If you want to live in a hegemony I suggest you find a different country to serve. I hear India is real nice this time of year and they have a wonderfully organized caste system. If you're going to continue to imply that you are somehow superior to me or have done more to earn your citizenship then I'll gladly be finished with this conversation, since you're obviously delusional.
As for the standard definition you're missing my point. The rules that we live under (that you've in fact risked your life to uphold) provide for the Judicial system to make these decisions for us. What they have decided at any given point IS the standard definition. If you're unhappy with the way that works then by all means argue against the Judicial system we have in place. Talk about it's flaws and offer us some intelligent alternatives to the current system. Sounds like a great conversation to have!
That's not what this conversation was about though. First, you suggested that the $2 million dollars and dismissal of charges he received in settlement was plenty enough to cover the civil rights violations he faced. My counter-point was that no amount of money is enough to allow the federal government to continue to abuse it's powers and violate the civil rights that we have. This time he managed to get the evidence in court and get the ruling, but what if he hadn't? What if the real bomber wasn't found? How many people would be wrongfully accused and have their lives destroyed by this? The man and his family was put through hell, he'll never be able to live his life the same way again. The rights he did not get to exercise are the same rights our men are dying in Iraq to provide, that YOU may have fought in combat for, but you think a few dollars and a quick apology are enough to right that wrong?
Your second point was that maybe the government shouldn't even be protecting that right. Just because they feel the 4th amendment means there has to be a search warrant before they can search your house, doesn't mean they're correct. Using your strict interpretation of the wording of the 4th amendment that right isn't actually explicitly stated. But then again, neither is the right to bear arms. Nowhere in the original document or it's amendments are citizens given the right to own or carry a gun and it's common knowledge that the writers original intent was not to give individuals that right. Hell, most of your rights to privacy are not explicitly stated in the document or the amendments, so should we just take them all away?
Or maybe, you're not the right person to be doing the interpreting. Maybe, just because you "...can actually read" isn't enough of a reason to make your opinion on the interpretation of the Constitution a strong argument. Maybe, even though these Judges are appointed, this Democracy of ours still produces a reasonably secure method of getting the general will of the people accomplished. Certainly everyone can't be happy all of the time, but then again if anyone who is literate is allowed to interpret the constitution and make the rules then all we'd have is Anarchy. It may not be perfect, it's constantly changing, but our history has shown it to do a mostly overall good job. After all, we do still live in the best country in the world.
I believe there are two currently recognized standards that the federal government can invoke to restrict free speech:
The Clear and Present Danger standard, which is the trickier of the two, and the Time, Place, and Manner standard, which is more often invoked.
An example of clear and present danger would be the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" gag, since it that speech can reasonably be expected to cause a clear and present danger to those around you.
The time, place, and manner standard is what would be invoked to prevent you from say, holding a loud protest down a suburban street at 2 AM when people in their homes would be trying to sleep.
Fine it's your interpretation, not a re-interpretation. Whichever way you say it it amounts to the same thing. The only justification you provided for your interpretation being any more accurate than anyone else's is that "you can read".
Meanwhile, there IS a standard interpretation. That's what precedent is; all of the previous decisions combined to identify where society stands on this issue today. Sometimes we reverse a position that we once held earlier, but generally not without overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Judges are not a priest class, They come from American schools and American homes and American churches and American neighborhoods. They are just people who have demonstrated the work ethic and intelligence and dedication to take on an important job that America decided needs to be done. It's the role of Judges to make these decisions, that's how it works in America. This isn't a class thing, they've been assigned that Job. If you don't like it go somewhere else, but there is nowhere in the world where your voice can have as much impact as in America, so I doubt you'll be happy anywhere else either.
Well you called out Conservatives specifically, so it seemed to be an easy connection that you were blaming conservatives for that particular problem.
So some lawyers made a compelling argument that a museum was an important enough public work to justify invoking Eminent Domain and it passed Judicial muster. One instance, and you think this is on the same severity of civil-rights violation as the Patriot Act? We're not paying enough attention to all of the museums that are being built because we're all too absorbed by this silly federal legislation that violates what have traditionally been our basic civil rights? Sorry, I'm not convinced. The gross violations laid in the Patriot Act are the most
I assure you, my awareness goes beyond CNN (maybe my earlier link to a very real and very subtle civil rights violation didn't convey that?). I understand that Iran doesn't like us and Venezuela doesn't like us. I also understand that their leaders while cruel and bloodthirsty and from our perspective immoral they are not un-intelligent. There is little for America as a whole to fear from Chavez and Ahmadinejad. I don't know what "college kids voting for free healthcare" has to do with any of this, but I would bet money that single-payer healthcare (not free) or the lack thereof will save or lose a thousand times the number of American lives that the global terrorist threat will be responsible for during the next 20 years.
You've somehow been duped into thinking that the extreme fundamentalist Islamics can convert the world to their point of view and take over America if the government isn't unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. You think that Roe v Wade violates the individual States ability to make laws for themselves, when in truth RvW was ultimately an interpretation of the constitution, just like your right to bear arms (another "decision made for the states" that is not in the constitution). You believe that the money spent on the Department of Education is a more important threat to your well being than a power-mad government that has, in it's seven years in office, not made one correct decision when it mattered. You believe that the McCain/Feingold act, one of the most lauded and influential pieces of campaign finance reform legislation to ever see the light of day, is a bad thing.
Here is the bottom line: The Patriot Act makes noone safer.
If you're not angry about the Patriot Act, you're not paying attention.
I wasn't appealing to a higher power. You claimed to re-interpret the Constitution based solely on the merit of being able to read. I was simply pointing out that the people who have been previously interpreting it (and doing a mostly darn good job in my opinion) have a lot more experience and expertise, and your "I think the Constitution means something different" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight.
If you're going to suggest that our government is violating the constitutions by "...encroachments upon Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." then I suggest you find some actual incidents of this happening instead of oblique references to rulings and laws that you understand little about, much less can't even spell correctly.
Here are some suggestions:
This XO gives the Secretary of the Treasury the right to seize the funds of any person they suspect is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq". No warrant or oversight required. Pretty scary stuff if you even thought about protesting the war. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
How about the FISA amendments that Congress recently passed, allowing the federal government to electronically wiretap anyone they believe is communicating with someone outside of the U.S. Effectively legalizing the previously illegal TSP and providing the government an easy way to justify surveillance on anyone they'd like.
I'm not suggesting that people and politicians don't abuse and stretch the limits of powers provided them, but that's not what Eminent Domain is about. You can argue those specific case because they're improperly using the law, but the law itself is a fairly sound and rational law and has been a part of common law for centuries.
As for conservatives being the bad guys here, George Bush recently signed an XO re-affirming that Eminent Domain should only be used sparingly and for public services and as a last resort option (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html).
As for your friends in Seattle I'm curious who fined them. After all, a private enterprise like a radio station does not answer to the constitution, they can fine and fire whomever they like for violating the terms of an employment contract.
Imminent Domain = A Rock Band Eminent Domain = The Government right to take possession of your land for PUBLIC purposes (i.e. highways, bridges, etc...) and they are required to compensate you for it. No mayor can take you land and "give it to a fatcat" to build a larger home. Hell, it's all clearly written out in the 5th Amendment. The CONSTITUTION, in other words.
That's right, money solves all the problems here. No need to correct the flaws that caused the government to screw up in the first place.
Also, you're missing the entire point. It's not the fingerprint matching or mistaken arrest that are at issue here, it's the searching without a warrant part.
Somehow, I'm guessing your ability to read is not enough to raise your interpretation of the Constitution above 200 years of professional judicial interpretations.
Uh, it's Eminent Domain, and it means nothing of the sort.
Whereas the Patriot Act was a legislative act in contradiction with current interpretations of the Constitution, RvW IS an interpretation of the constitution. RvW is a judicial decision about what the Constitution says, not a legislative decision.
McCain/Feingold doesn't prohibit the speech, only limit the funding sources of the speech. While this COULD be construed to have a chilling effect, until someone with standing takes it to a court we'll not know what our judicial system thinks.
Part of the reason for that is that your rights to privacy are not explicitly stated in the constitution or it's amendments. Federal courts have ruled that a combination of interpretations of various parts of the Bill of Rights are what grant you the rights to privacy that you expect. I believe the phrase they use is "the penumbra of the bill of rights".
With this in mind, any ruling based on those rulings can be undermined a little more easily, which was the reasoning behind Ginsberg's concern.
Funny, but his line will likely be something more like "This shows our legislative and judicial system is working as intended." Being correct, but addressing a complete lack of concern for the fact that one man's life had to be almost destroyed in order for the fix to be made. Much more sad and much less funny.
There was an essay recently that discussed the "underground" Gay Culture in Saudi Arabia. Basically, it's not underground at all and flourishes quite well due to some liberal interpretations of Muslim law. As long as they don't suck each other's bone marrow in public view, the can get get away with whatever they'd like.
I can't imagine it's much different in Iran. Maybe a little less obvious about it, but I'm sure it's prevalent and common.
How about "In Search of the Most Amazing Thing"? Anyone remember that? I remember finding the most amazing thing and then being killed by one of those monsters-disguised-as-a-fueling-rock on my way back to home base. Jerk.
Do some googling. This Slashdot bit doesn't adequately explain it.
Torrentspy has been ordered to retain records of all of the information that is in their RAM as part of discovery. Not turn the physical RAM chips over to the court.
I read a couple of other articles on it (google 'em, easy to find) and basically the Judge understands more than this Slashdot abstract says.
Torrentspy was contending that they had no record of user's IP addresses, since they don't do any IP logging. The Judge has ordered that since, even though there is no logging, the IPs are available in the RAM for a period of time, that constitutes a recording and they were ordered to capture that information from the RAM in a more permanent spot.
This is new because it's the first time that volatile RAM has even been considered as evidence in that manner.
Slashdot Mirror
I also use an Aeron at work... although I didn't know it until I read this comment and googled it. I love the chair, definitely the best chair I've ever sat in.
I don't know, my wife just started in the matrimony department at her firm and it sounds like they get some pretty interesting stuff submitted! :)
But man are they throwing the book against him. I have no love for the frivolous nature of the lawsuits and ridiculous manner he presents his arguments but it sounds like they're really going over the top. I mean, that list of charges against him reads like every lawyer's trial strategy.
It's very much true, Bay is late to the party:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26216
Bay is late to the party:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26216
It has come up before, Bay isn't the first to point it out.
Microsoft owns the rights to a likely-to-be industry standard DRM for digital distribution. MS Wins when the world moves to digital distribution, and they have a vested interest in making sure that happens sooner rather than later.
From June of 2007:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26216
Yes you are, but instead of the killing the Jews you pwn nubs.
Ok. I'll tackle these one at a time.
You've earned nothing in regards to citizenship that I have not. Your's and my citizenship is a function of your being born here, the same as anyone else and it's a matter of pure chance. I can only assume that you're referencing your service in the Military, which is commendable but does not under any intelligent circumstance propel you to some elevated class status or citizenship. If you want to live in a hegemony I suggest you find a different country to serve. I hear India is real nice this time of year and they have a wonderfully organized caste system. If you're going to continue to imply that you are somehow superior to me or have done more to earn your citizenship then I'll gladly be finished with this conversation, since you're obviously delusional.
As for the standard definition you're missing my point. The rules that we live under (that you've in fact risked your life to uphold) provide for the Judicial system to make these decisions for us. What they have decided at any given point IS the standard definition. If you're unhappy with the way that works then by all means argue against the Judicial system we have in place. Talk about it's flaws and offer us some intelligent alternatives to the current system. Sounds like a great conversation to have!
That's not what this conversation was about though. First, you suggested that the $2 million dollars and dismissal of charges he received in settlement was plenty enough to cover the civil rights violations he faced. My counter-point was that no amount of money is enough to allow the federal government to continue to abuse it's powers and violate the civil rights that we have. This time he managed to get the evidence in court and get the ruling, but what if he hadn't? What if the real bomber wasn't found? How many people would be wrongfully accused and have their lives destroyed by this? The man and his family was put through hell, he'll never be able to live his life the same way again. The rights he did not get to exercise are the same rights our men are dying in Iraq to provide, that YOU may have fought in combat for, but you think a few dollars and a quick apology are enough to right that wrong?
Your second point was that maybe the government shouldn't even be protecting that right. Just because they feel the 4th amendment means there has to be a search warrant before they can search your house, doesn't mean they're correct. Using your strict interpretation of the wording of the 4th amendment that right isn't actually explicitly stated. But then again, neither is the right to bear arms. Nowhere in the original document or it's amendments are citizens given the right to own or carry a gun and it's common knowledge that the writers original intent was not to give individuals that right. Hell, most of your rights to privacy are not explicitly stated in the document or the amendments, so should we just take them all away?
Or maybe, you're not the right person to be doing the interpreting. Maybe, just because you "...can actually read" isn't enough of a reason to make your opinion on the interpretation of the Constitution a strong argument. Maybe, even though these Judges are appointed, this Democracy of ours still produces a reasonably secure method of getting the general will of the people accomplished. Certainly everyone can't be happy all of the time, but then again if anyone who is literate is allowed to interpret the constitution and make the rules then all we'd have is Anarchy. It may not be perfect, it's constantly changing, but our history has shown it to do a mostly overall good job. After all, we do still live in the best country in the world.
I believe there are two currently recognized standards that the federal government can invoke to restrict free speech:
The Clear and Present Danger standard, which is the trickier of the two, and the Time, Place, and Manner standard, which is more often invoked.
An example of clear and present danger would be the old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" gag, since it that speech can reasonably be expected to cause a clear and present danger to those around you.
The time, place, and manner standard is what would be invoked to prevent you from say, holding a loud protest down a suburban street at 2 AM when people in their homes would be trying to sleep.
Fine it's your interpretation, not a re-interpretation. Whichever way you say it it amounts to the same thing. The only justification you provided for your interpretation being any more accurate than anyone else's is that "you can read".
Meanwhile, there IS a standard interpretation. That's what precedent is; all of the previous decisions combined to identify where society stands on this issue today. Sometimes we reverse a position that we once held earlier, but generally not without overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Judges are not a priest class, They come from American schools and American homes and American churches and American neighborhoods. They are just people who have demonstrated the work ethic and intelligence and dedication to take on an important job that America decided needs to be done. It's the role of Judges to make these decisions, that's how it works in America. This isn't a class thing, they've been assigned that Job. If you don't like it go somewhere else, but there is nowhere in the world where your voice can have as much impact as in America, so I doubt you'll be happy anywhere else either.
Well you called out Conservatives specifically, so it seemed to be an easy connection that you were blaming conservatives for that particular problem.
So some lawyers made a compelling argument that a museum was an important enough public work to justify invoking Eminent Domain and it passed Judicial muster. One instance, and you think this is on the same severity of civil-rights violation as the Patriot Act? We're not paying enough attention to all of the museums that are being built because we're all too absorbed by this silly federal legislation that violates what have traditionally been our basic civil rights? Sorry, I'm not convinced. The gross violations laid in the Patriot Act are the most
I assure you, my awareness goes beyond CNN (maybe my earlier link to a very real and very subtle civil rights violation didn't convey that?). I understand that Iran doesn't like us and Venezuela doesn't like us. I also understand that their leaders while cruel and bloodthirsty and from our perspective immoral they are not un-intelligent. There is little for America as a whole to fear from Chavez and Ahmadinejad. I don't know what "college kids voting for free healthcare" has to do with any of this, but I would bet money that single-payer healthcare (not free) or the lack thereof will save or lose a thousand times the number of American lives that the global terrorist threat will be responsible for during the next 20 years.
You've somehow been duped into thinking that the extreme fundamentalist Islamics can convert the world to their point of view and take over America if the government isn't unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. You think that Roe v Wade violates the individual States ability to make laws for themselves, when in truth RvW was ultimately an interpretation of the constitution, just like your right to bear arms (another "decision made for the states" that is not in the constitution). You believe that the money spent on the Department of Education is a more important threat to your well being than a power-mad government that has, in it's seven years in office, not made one correct decision when it mattered. You believe that the McCain/Feingold act, one of the most lauded and influential pieces of campaign finance reform legislation to ever see the light of day, is a bad thing.
Here is the bottom line: The Patriot Act makes noone safer.
If you're not angry about the Patriot Act, you're not paying attention.
I wasn't appealing to a higher power. You claimed to re-interpret the Constitution based solely on the merit of being able to read. I was simply pointing out that the people who have been previously interpreting it (and doing a mostly darn good job in my opinion) have a lot more experience and expertise, and your "I think the Constitution means something different" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight.
If you're going to suggest that our government is violating the constitutions by "...encroachments upon Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." then I suggest you find some actual incidents of this happening instead of oblique references to rulings and laws that you understand little about, much less can't even spell correctly.
Here are some suggestions:
This XO gives the Secretary of the Treasury the right to seize the funds of any person they suspect is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq". No warrant or oversight required. Pretty scary stuff if you even thought about protesting the war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
How about the FISA amendments that Congress recently passed, allowing the federal government to electronically wiretap anyone they believe is communicating with someone outside of the U.S. Effectively legalizing the previously illegal TSP and providing the government an easy way to justify surveillance on anyone they'd like.
I'm not suggesting that people and politicians don't abuse and stretch the limits of powers provided them, but that's not what Eminent Domain is about. You can argue those specific case because they're improperly using the law, but the law itself is a fairly sound and rational law and has been a part of common law for centuries.
As for conservatives being the bad guys here, George Bush recently signed an XO re-affirming that Eminent Domain should only be used sparingly and for public services and as a last resort option (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html).
As for your friends in Seattle I'm curious who fined them. After all, a private enterprise like a radio station does not answer to the constitution, they can fine and fire whomever they like for violating the terms of an employment contract.
Seriously, stop it.
Imminent Domain = A Rock Band
Eminent Domain = The Government right to take possession of your land for PUBLIC purposes (i.e. highways, bridges, etc...) and they are required to compensate you for it. No mayor can take you land and "give it to a fatcat" to build a larger home. Hell, it's all clearly written out in the 5th Amendment. The CONSTITUTION, in other words.
That's right, money solves all the problems here. No need to correct the flaws that caused the government to screw up in the first place.
Also, you're missing the entire point. It's not the fingerprint matching or mistaken arrest that are at issue here, it's the searching without a warrant part.
Somehow, I'm guessing your ability to read is not enough to raise your interpretation of the Constitution above 200 years of professional judicial interpretations.
Uh, it's Eminent Domain, and it means nothing of the sort.
Whereas the Patriot Act was a legislative act in contradiction with current interpretations of the Constitution, RvW IS an interpretation of the constitution. RvW is a judicial decision about what the Constitution says, not a legislative decision.
McCain/Feingold doesn't prohibit the speech, only limit the funding sources of the speech. While this COULD be construed to have a chilling effect, until someone with standing takes it to a court we'll not know what our judicial system thinks.
Part of the reason for that is that your rights to privacy are not explicitly stated in the constitution or it's amendments. Federal courts have ruled that a combination of interpretations of various parts of the Bill of Rights are what grant you the rights to privacy that you expect. I believe the phrase they use is "the penumbra of the bill of rights".
With this in mind, any ruling based on those rulings can be undermined a little more easily, which was the reasoning behind Ginsberg's concern.
Funny, but his line will likely be something more like "This shows our legislative and judicial system is working as intended." Being correct, but addressing a complete lack of concern for the fact that one man's life had to be almost destroyed in order for the fix to be made. Much more sad and much less funny.
There was an essay recently that discussed the "underground" Gay Culture in Saudi Arabia. Basically, it's not underground at all and flourishes quite well due to some liberal interpretations of Muslim law. As long as they don't suck each other's bone marrow in public view, the can get get away with whatever they'd like. I can't imagine it's much different in Iran. Maybe a little less obvious about it, but I'm sure it's prevalent and common.
Yes. I cannot stand Adobe reader. Or any Adobe software for that matter.
Hooray for Foxit!
...and it's sequels. Those games were brutal!
How about "In Search of the Most Amazing Thing"? Anyone remember that? I remember finding the most amazing thing and then being killed by one of those monsters-disguised-as-a-fueling-rock on my way back to home base. Jerk.
RTFA.
There was an entire paragraph on Kart Rider.
Do some googling. This Slashdot bit doesn't adequately explain it.
Torrentspy has been ordered to retain records of all of the information that is in their RAM as part of discovery. Not turn the physical RAM chips over to the court.
I read a couple of other articles on it (google 'em, easy to find) and basically the Judge understands more than this Slashdot abstract says.
Torrentspy was contending that they had no record of user's IP addresses, since they don't do any IP logging. The Judge has ordered that since, even though there is no logging, the IPs are available in the RAM for a period of time, that constitutes a recording and they were ordered to capture that information from the RAM in a more permanent spot.
This is new because it's the first time that volatile RAM has even been considered as evidence in that manner.