For starters, Valve can bring integration with the many Source games so your own library is dynamically mixed with the game's sounds, rather than just playing both at constant volumes. With more effort, the game could request certain kinds of music, so your zombie-slaying sessions are accompanied by a perfect energetic theme song, while the sad story moments are set to a more melancholy tune.
In a world where there's more to life than a title and pay grade, where people want to have an interesting job doing more than endlessly waiting for an order - an order they hope will never come - one man must decide, between his honor, and his sanity.
<video src="MilitaryCadets.webm"></video>
<video src="StressfulExam.webm"></video>
<video src="ImpliedCheating.webm"></video>
This summer, the biggest threat to a nation......is its own bureaucracy.
The rover has a finite life until it fails. The donut has already been examined enough for NASA to think it's boring, and there are far more interesting goals further ahead that we'd like to reach before the wheels fall off, the power supply dies, or the sensors get too dusty to function.
Hi, this is $name with account $account, and I had my identity stolen a while ago. They changed all of my account information, and I want to check to see if this account was hacked. What are the last 4 of the SSN on the account?
Of course, the customer support rep wants to be helpful, and the person already knows the other account identifiers... so the idea of fraud never crosses their mind.
Sounds like you're exactly the sort of person my sig was written for.
Let's start by noting that I did not intend to quote the SCOTUS opinion nor the Constitution verbatim, but rather to include the meaningful semantics established by case law since their writings. You would do well to research first, rather than dismissing positions you don't like.
Speech is not limited to opinion.
Speech is inextricable from opinion. How exactly, as a human, do you express anything without inflecting opinion on it? Even by blandly stating facts, the choice of facts to present represents an opinion, and the choice to state anything at all is itself representing an opinion. Art, porn, comic books, humor, and financial decisions are all curated according to opinions. It is that opinion that is protected, including the part that decides that porn is the best way to make a political commentary.
SCOTUS has opined that absolute free expression is, colloquially, a rather large can of worms. If someone wants to make a point about how ineffective gun control is, what better way than to embark on a shooting spree? If the protection is absolute, clearly this must be a protected act as well, especially if the shooter is careful to only shoot near people, but not actually hit them. Every action is merely the expression of a desire by the perpetrator, so per the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law prohibiting anything, right?
To avoid the anarchy of having everything protected, courts have usually protected the underlying opinion, but may still condemn the act used to express the opinion. You can, for instance, advocate that the IRS should be dissolved, and you can encourage others to not file their taxes, and you can even produce IRS-themed porn if you so choose, but failing to file your own tax paperwork is still illegal.
this test only applies to apolitical speech,
[citation needed]. The test itself was formed in relation to a political case.
We did pretty much exactly that, with the Sedition Act of 1918. It was just about as bad as you make it sound, and was eventually repealed, but before that it was upheld. The logic used to pass it was that expression was still free, but it had to be done nicely during wartime, so as to not undermine the American war effort.
Free speech is the right to express any opinion. You do not get to break other laws in order to exercise your rights. Murder is not free speech. Racial discrimination is not free speech. Slander is not free speech.
In fact, the currently-held test for whether an expression is protected is whether it directly causes lawless action. If the expression is lawless in itself, that counts, too. What you can do, however, is write essays and stage legal protests announcing that you feel money laundering (and the anonymity it provides) should be legal. Of course, someone might take offense at your speech, and law enforcement might get suspicious and start looking more closely at your tax forms, but Congress can make no law abridging your ability to (lawfully) express that opinion.
I think it's a pretty big leap to go from foreign espionage to unlimited interference anywhere. That's a lot of conditions removed. A much smaller leap is to say that espionage against a foreign government for the benefit of our own government is also suitable for and against government contractors.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress power over interstate Congress, so that would be allow Congress to authorize any domestic interference, not the NSA (though Congress could probably charge the NSA with such a task).
I still don't see how "the Constitution goes out the window" as in SirGarlon's post. Apparently it's +5 Insightful to say that the government's ignoring the Constitution, though.
It just saves US companies from having to spend money on R&D to develop their own solutions, or helps them win contracts overseas.
...making the American companies more economically powerful, so other countries have more reason to ally with the US, while the US remains more economically independent. That's kinda the point, no?
so know all about the NSA backdoors and vulnerabilities they discovered.
Perhaps they do, but as long as remaining undetected is more important than using the information they have, they can't change their behavior. I seem to recall similar incidents in WWII, where the only way Americans were warned about German movements was through cracked Enigma messages. The Allies couldn't counteract, because that would let the Germans know they had broken the Enigma.
Spying on one uncooperative American company to help a favored American competitor wouldn't really help national security as much. The balance of economic power between nations would be unchanged.
Offhand, I don't know of any section of the Constitution that would be affected here. The Constitution doesn't actually afford any protection for foreign nations, but I'm sure the hordes of wishful thinkers will insist otherwise.
Assuming the espionage is purely separate from any military programs, American companies get the ability to build products Americans rely on, rather than having American life be dependent on foreign companies which might not be able or willing to export during World War 3. And somehow that's not a part of national security?
Here's what I actually believe, then: You're a troll who hasn't seen much valid information about me since you said "Seriously? You believe that?". I like messing around, and I like logical debates. You've shown clearly that you're incapable of following a logical discussion, so that leaves one option.
Unfortunately, tomorrow starts a busy week, and I wouldn't want to leave you in want of a reply, so I'll set your expectations low. Goodbye.
..then why do you make assumptions about what I think? Any observations you're making at this point are subject to bias introduced in your flawed experimental procedure. Your data is invalid.
You're assuming something that's up for debate. Now you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. It sounds to me like you don't actually want answers to the questions you ask.
Supply HTTP code 404, and provide the content of the old page, preferably with a large banner saying "we couldn't find it, but here's what we had before".
I believe that meets all applicable standards. Automated systems should recognize the 404 code, and human systems (which won't likely see the underlying code) will see the banner.
You could have just asked, you know. I am a person who values logic and application of a consistent rule set, well-educated in the fields of law and computer science.
Of course, now you're claiming that such a viewpoint is unusual. You'll have to prove that, too.
You are claiming the patent is obvious. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it's obvious. Surely there must be some example of a similar system, if it was so obvious in 1997?
Instead of actually proving your claim, you're asking me to prove that something was not possible, to which the reexaminations of the patent in question serves as evidence of the adequate non-obvious nature of the surviving portions of the patent.
Slashdot Mirror
For starters, Valve can bring integration with the many Source games so your own library is dynamically mixed with the game's sounds, rather than just playing both at constant volumes. With more effort, the game could request certain kinds of music, so your zombie-slaying sessions are accompanied by a perfect energetic theme song, while the sad story moments are set to a more melancholy tune.
No, I do think it's stupid and unbelievable. I'm just arrogant enough to want to come to that conclusion myself.
Techdirt is honest reporting at its finest, rivaling even Slashdot's journalistic integrity. They're both very upfront and clear about their biases.
...his reasoning is as stupid as it is unbelievable.
<voice style="male movietrailer stereotypical">
In a world where there's more to life than a title and pay grade, where people want to have an interesting job doing more than endlessly waiting for an order - an order they hope will never come - one man must decide, between his honor, and his sanity.
<video src="MilitaryCadets.webm"></video>
<video src="StressfulExam.webm"></video>
<video src="ImpliedCheating.webm"></video>
This summer, the biggest threat to a nation... ...is its own bureaucracy.
<video src="BaseFlyover.webm"></video>
Coming July 4th to a theater of war near you.
<video src="MissileSiloOpening.webm"></video>
</voice>
The rover has a finite life until it fails. The donut has already been examined enough for NASA to think it's boring, and there are far more interesting goals further ahead that we'd like to reach before the wheels fall off, the power supply dies, or the sensors get too dusty to function.
Hi, this is $name with account $account, and I had my identity stolen a while ago. They changed all of my account information, and I want to check to see if this account was hacked. What are the last 4 of the SSN on the account?
Of course, the customer support rep wants to be helpful, and the person already knows the other account identifiers... so the idea of fraud never crosses their mind.
Sounds like you're exactly the sort of person my sig was written for.
Let's start by noting that I did not intend to quote the SCOTUS opinion nor the Constitution verbatim, but rather to include the meaningful semantics established by case law since their writings. You would do well to research first, rather than dismissing positions you don't like.
Speech is not limited to opinion.
Speech is inextricable from opinion. How exactly, as a human, do you express anything without inflecting opinion on it? Even by blandly stating facts, the choice of facts to present represents an opinion, and the choice to state anything at all is itself representing an opinion. Art, porn, comic books, humor, and financial decisions are all curated according to opinions. It is that opinion that is protected, including the part that decides that porn is the best way to make a political commentary.
SCOTUS has opined that absolute free expression is, colloquially, a rather large can of worms. If someone wants to make a point about how ineffective gun control is, what better way than to embark on a shooting spree? If the protection is absolute, clearly this must be a protected act as well, especially if the shooter is careful to only shoot near people, but not actually hit them. Every action is merely the expression of a desire by the perpetrator, so per the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law prohibiting anything, right?
To avoid the anarchy of having everything protected, courts have usually protected the underlying opinion, but may still condemn the act used to express the opinion. You can, for instance, advocate that the IRS should be dissolved, and you can encourage others to not file their taxes, and you can even produce IRS-themed porn if you so choose, but failing to file your own tax paperwork is still illegal.
this test only applies to apolitical speech,
[citation needed]. The test itself was formed in relation to a political case.
Thank you for supporting my once sarcastic remark
Try </sarcasm> next time.
We did pretty much exactly that, with the Sedition Act of 1918. It was just about as bad as you make it sound, and was eventually repealed, but before that it was upheld. The logic used to pass it was that expression was still free, but it had to be done nicely during wartime, so as to not undermine the American war effort.
No, it isn't.
Free speech is the right to express any opinion. You do not get to break other laws in order to exercise your rights. Murder is not free speech. Racial discrimination is not free speech. Slander is not free speech.
In fact, the currently-held test for whether an expression is protected is whether it directly causes lawless action. If the expression is lawless in itself, that counts, too. What you can do, however, is write essays and stage legal protests announcing that you feel money laundering (and the anonymity it provides) should be legal. Of course, someone might take offense at your speech, and law enforcement might get suspicious and start looking more closely at your tax forms, but Congress can make no law abridging your ability to (lawfully) express that opinion.
Except the king can't decide it, because ex post facto laws are forbidden, and the king can't override that because of rule of law.
What, you mean most Americans don't already have a natural understanding of American legal proceedings?
I think it's a pretty big leap to go from foreign espionage to unlimited interference anywhere. That's a lot of conditions removed. A much smaller leap is to say that espionage against a foreign government for the benefit of our own government is also suitable for and against government contractors.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress power over interstate Congress, so that would be allow Congress to authorize any domestic interference, not the NSA (though Congress could probably charge the NSA with such a task).
I still don't see how "the Constitution goes out the window" as in SirGarlon's post. Apparently it's +5 Insightful to say that the government's ignoring the Constitution, though.
It just saves US companies from having to spend money on R&D to develop their own solutions, or helps them win contracts overseas.
...making the American companies more economically powerful, so other countries have more reason to ally with the US, while the US remains more economically independent. That's kinda the point, no?
so know all about the NSA backdoors and vulnerabilities they discovered.
Perhaps they do, but as long as remaining undetected is more important than using the information they have, they can't change their behavior. I seem to recall similar incidents in WWII, where the only way Americans were warned about German movements was through cracked Enigma messages. The Allies couldn't counteract, because that would let the Germans know they had broken the Enigma.
Maybe that's why it was supposed to be a secret.
Cute, but no.
Spying on one uncooperative American company to help a favored American competitor wouldn't really help national security as much. The balance of economic power between nations would be unchanged.
Offhand, I don't know of any section of the Constitution that would be affected here. The Constitution doesn't actually afford any protection for foreign nations, but I'm sure the hordes of wishful thinkers will insist otherwise.
Assuming the espionage is purely separate from any military programs, American companies get the ability to build products Americans rely on, rather than having American life be dependent on foreign companies which might not be able or willing to export during World War 3. And somehow that's not a part of national security?
Here's what I actually believe, then: You're a troll who hasn't seen much valid information about me since you said "Seriously? You believe that?". I like messing around, and I like logical debates. You've shown clearly that you're incapable of following a logical discussion, so that leaves one option.
Unfortunately, tomorrow starts a busy week, and I wouldn't want to leave you in want of a reply, so I'll set your expectations low. Goodbye.
..then why do you make assumptions about what I think? Any observations you're making at this point are subject to bias introduced in your flawed experimental procedure. Your data is invalid.
You're assuming something that's up for debate. Now you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. It sounds to me like you don't actually want answers to the questions you ask.
Begging one question to avoid another? That's not right.
Just in case you'd forgotten that Snowden still exists, here's Slashdot to stir up all that nice outrage.
So, do you usually avoid backing up your claims?
Supply HTTP code 404, and provide the content of the old page, preferably with a large banner saying "we couldn't find it, but here's what we had before".
I believe that meets all applicable standards. Automated systems should recognize the 404 code, and human systems (which won't likely see the underlying code) will see the banner.
You could have just asked, you know. I am a person who values logic and application of a consistent rule set, well-educated in the fields of law and computer science.
Of course, now you're claiming that such a viewpoint is unusual. You'll have to prove that, too.
You are claiming the patent is obvious. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it's obvious. Surely there must be some example of a similar system, if it was so obvious in 1997?
Instead of actually proving your claim, you're asking me to prove that something was not possible, to which the reexaminations of the patent in question serves as evidence of the adequate non-obvious nature of the surviving portions of the patent.
Please review your rules of debate and try again.