Actually, the constitutional rights that are restricted by age are specifically spelled out in the constitution. For example, the right to vote is not constitutionally protected until your are 18. The right to hold certain public office is also restricted by age.
The right to free speech is not. Check out the text of the constitution sometime.
Also, the public schools ARE an arm of the government, and are constitutionally prohibited from abridging the rights of ANYONE.
No, it makes a judge that can't see through the farce very, very stupid.
You see, by crushing the pointy end, you haven't met the challenge of making the egg stand on the pointy end - as the egg no longer has one, it can't stand on it.
The actual (and obvious) solution is to simply drop the egg into a carton.
ok, I just looked at an eMac logic board. Honestly, the caps look like they'd be less trouble to replace than the board was to get out of the eMac in the first place.
But... you know it's the logic board. The computer is dead because of this. You really only have the options of replacing the computer, replacing the logic board, or replacing the caps. Now, I quoted a logic board replacement on an eMac last week, and I know it's expensive, probably prohibitively so (it's at least 1.5 hours labor and a fairly expensive board) but given the computer is dead and you've already done the hard part, why not replace the caps? The worst you can do is not fix an already dead board, that you've already decided not to replace the board on.
Of course, if you want to replace the computer anyway, a Mac mini is a great replacement - MUCH easier to work on than the eMac.
Well, the apetite supressant would be fine, and I could live with the increased sex drive, but NO WAY am I taking a drug that makes me look like I have a tan. I'm quite happy being pale.
You do realize the prison activites at Gitmo are illegal, right?
Amazingly enough, the US Constitution has NOTHING that allows the government to act without regard for anyone's rights, there is NOTHING in the Bill of Rights that says "btw, this applies only to citizens".
No, the Constitution applies to the actions of the US government, anywhere and everywhere those actions are taken. And if you want to complain about "activist judges", complain about those who turn a blind eye to things like Gitmo. It should have been shut down by the first district judge to see anything about it.
You know, considering the state our government is in, I would much prefer that someone would build into all software going to the government an "unredact" feature to make it even easier to recover government coverups.
Barring that, PLEASE don't educate them, or make it easier for them to really redact anything.
"Pre-teen girls babbling about who kissed who at last night's party definitely do not qualify."
Um, what?
They most certainly DO qualify, as their target audience is much more interested in the goings-on at last night's party than in the shooting at the 7-eleven. They are journalists.
If the precedent could be set that they weren't, the gossip columns in nearly every major newspaper could be declared "not journalism" which would be very dangerous to a free society.
Likewise, geeks writing about what they did at work today qualify, assuming that they have an audience. People writing editorial rants about legal cases (like yours) qualify.
The concept that a journalist must be someone who has taken classes or has decided to follow a "code of ethics" is patently rediculous, and is not at all what the First Amendment was written to protect.
I think saying that we believe in the rule of law above all else is the problem with that construct.
Keep in mind that laws are written by a group of people who have throughout history proven to be among the most corrupt and corruptable people in society. They are currently elected to represent 50.1% of the people who actually bother to vote at all. The selection process by which they are placed on the ballot is far less than transparent, and subject to the whims of the power structures of two large and entrenched political parties, frequently leaving a choice at vote time of two evils.
So, no, I don't believe the rule of law above all else can possibly be a good thing given the lawmakers.
What people don't seem to understand about the Mac virus issue is that there are two real motives to write a virus - Profit and Props.
The people writing a virus for profit are certainly going to target windoze, because it's a more popular platform, and they can get more zombies that way.
The people writing for props ARE targeting the Mac - because you get a HUGE props win for actually successfully hitting a platform that has NO viruses in the wild today. So far, they've failed. From the looks of it, they're likely to continue to fail, because the Mac OS is inherently more resistant to the sort of attacks they've attempted.
Now, no computer is perfectly secure - but windoze is less secure than Mac OS, period.
Actually, the astronauts ARE in that position. They are fully briefed on these issues, and they have the right to say "I won't fly in that".
Unfortunately, they are a very BAD choice of person to make the decision as to whether to fly at all, because they are typically very much risk-taking personalities, and many are likely to say "oh, so there's probably a 1 in 100 chance of a fiery death, but I get to go into space? Ok, let's do it!"
While that may be OK for an astronaut on a personal level, every accident throws YEARS of delay into the space program and wastes millions of dollars. We really can't afford another one right now.
And who knows, this decision to fly may be the right one - the foam DID fall away harmlessly, and this is really the first time we've had data on this particular area of the tank at all.
Actually, there are good reasons not to read the small print:
*I have a reasonable expectation that the small print is substantially similar to the big print, only restated in legalese and in more detail. If this is not the case, the small print is legally invalid in many jurisdictions.
*The small print is generally written in legalese, a language designed to obfuscate the meaning from the public. For a non-attorney to read and understand it would require an inordinate amount of time in many cases.
*If you do take the time to read and understand the small print, you've most likely just obligated yourself to it. If you can reasonably argue in court that you had no idea what that small print actually said, but were given an explanation by a salesperson (best to have a tape of this, or a witness) you have a reasonably good chance of having the actual contract you signed be defined to be the salesperson's explanation and the large print.
Now, I'm not saying if I do or don't actually read the small print - just that there ARE very valid reasons not to.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 1
How so? The first amendment is content-neutral.
Re:Putting quotes around "trade secrets"
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 1
Let me clarify my comments for you, since you obviously didn't understand my implication.
Apple rumor sites ARE engaging in investigative journalism.
Just because the information they gather is about a commercial product, does not make it irrelevant, does not make it not news, and does not make it not in the public interest.
In this case, Apple's management thinks Apple's interest is contrary to the public interest, and wants to keep information secret. When they fail, they want to use the government to supress those who released the information. This is not acceptable in a free society.
I'm sorry, I'm a Mac user, and Mac consultant - I think Apple has the best computer out there. But sometimes, I find their citizenship deplorable.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the constitutional rights that are restricted by age are specifically spelled out in the constitution. For example, the right to vote is not constitutionally protected until your are 18. The right to hold certain public office is also restricted by age.
The right to free speech is not. Check out the text of the constitution sometime.
Also, the public schools ARE an arm of the government, and are constitutionally prohibited from abridging the rights of ANYONE.
Thank you!!!
I don't understand where people here keep coming up with all these limits to the right to free speech, when they aren't there in the constitution.
Someone with mod points, please mod parent up as informative!
No, it makes a judge that can't see through the farce very, very stupid.
You see, by crushing the pointy end, you haven't met the challenge of making the egg stand on the pointy end - as the egg no longer has one, it can't stand on it.
The actual (and obvious) solution is to simply drop the egg into a carton.
"Quit making excuses for Microsoft. They already have a very expensive PR dept for that sort of thing."
Who do you think is paying him?
Um, that's $3/gallon.
Translated to liter prices, that's $1.26/liter, or 69.2p.
My price today would actually be $2.54/gallon.
You can thank that moron Reagan for the US not being metric.
Scratch that.
Announced today, the eMac Repair Extension Program for Video and Power Issues
It sounds like that will likely cover you.
ok, I just looked at an eMac logic board. Honestly, the caps look like they'd be less trouble to replace than the board was to get out of the eMac in the first place.
But... you know it's the logic board. The computer is dead because of this. You really only have the options of replacing the computer, replacing the logic board, or replacing the caps. Now, I quoted a logic board replacement on an eMac last week, and I know it's expensive, probably prohibitively so (it's at least 1.5 hours labor and a fairly expensive board) but given the computer is dead and you've already done the hard part, why not replace the caps? The worst you can do is not fix an already dead board, that you've already decided not to replace the board on.
Of course, if you want to replace the computer anyway, a Mac mini is a great replacement - MUCH easier to work on than the eMac.
Well, the apetite supressant would be fine, and I could live with the increased sex drive, but NO WAY am I taking a drug that makes me look like I have a tan. I'm quite happy being pale.
Dell Laptop Explodes
Mod parent troll.
You do realize the prison activites at Gitmo are illegal, right?
Amazingly enough, the US Constitution has NOTHING that allows the government to act without regard for anyone's rights, there is NOTHING in the Bill of Rights that says "btw, this applies only to citizens".
No, the Constitution applies to the actions of the US government, anywhere and everywhere those actions are taken. And if you want to complain about "activist judges", complain about those who turn a blind eye to things like Gitmo. It should have been shut down by the first district judge to see anything about it.
This is NOT scary. This is refreshing.
I would much prefer my government be unable to successfully keep secrets from me.
You know, considering the state our government is in, I would much prefer that someone would build into all software going to the government an "unredact" feature to make it even easier to recover government coverups.
Barring that, PLEASE don't educate them, or make it easier for them to really redact anything.
No, it doesn't.
It's pretty strong evidence, but it is in no way proof of a meeting of the minds.
If it's possible to demonstrate that you had no idea what you were signing, it's entirely possible that a contract is invalid.
The propaganda never worked for me. When I think of stealing music, I think of going into a store and shoplifting it.
I don't equate copying with stealing, because it isn't.
We would have been SAFER if we had just ignored it.
Um, what?
I can't find any reference to jackal or vulture being poisonous.
Plenty of refs to people poisoning them, but none at all to them being bad for humans to eat.
Source please?
"Pre-teen girls babbling about who kissed who at last night's party definitely do not qualify."
Um, what?
They most certainly DO qualify, as their target audience is much more interested in the goings-on at last night's party than in the shooting at the 7-eleven. They are journalists.
If the precedent could be set that they weren't, the gossip columns in nearly every major newspaper could be declared "not journalism" which would be very dangerous to a free society.
Likewise, geeks writing about what they did at work today qualify, assuming that they have an audience. People writing editorial rants about legal cases (like yours) qualify.
The concept that a journalist must be someone who has taken classes or has decided to follow a "code of ethics" is patently rediculous, and is not at all what the First Amendment was written to protect.
I think saying that we believe in the rule of law above all else is the problem with that construct.
Keep in mind that laws are written by a group of people who have throughout history proven to be among the most corrupt and corruptable people in society. They are currently elected to represent 50.1% of the people who actually bother to vote at all. The selection process by which they are placed on the ballot is far less than transparent, and subject to the whims of the power structures of two large and entrenched political parties, frequently leaving a choice at vote time of two evils.
So, no, I don't believe the rule of law above all else can possibly be a good thing given the lawmakers.
Well, if you want anecdotal evidence, I have a second generation iPod 10GB.
It's functioned perfectly since I got it new, it stays in my car, which can be very hot or very cold.
I've never even had to put a battery in it.
And they do.
As soon as they figure out which service provider gave SA the manual, they can yell at that service provider.
Beyond that, they have no right to do anything about fair use of the manual.
What people don't seem to understand about the Mac virus issue is that there are two real motives to write a virus - Profit and Props.
The people writing a virus for profit are certainly going to target windoze, because it's a more popular platform, and they can get more zombies that way.
The people writing for props ARE targeting the Mac - because you get a HUGE props win for actually successfully hitting a platform that has NO viruses in the wild today. So far, they've failed. From the looks of it, they're likely to continue to fail, because the Mac OS is inherently more resistant to the sort of attacks they've attempted.
Now, no computer is perfectly secure - but windoze is less secure than Mac OS, period.
Actually, the astronauts ARE in that position. They are fully briefed on these issues, and they have the right to say "I won't fly in that".
Unfortunately, they are a very BAD choice of person to make the decision as to whether to fly at all, because they are typically very much risk-taking personalities, and many are likely to say "oh, so there's probably a 1 in 100 chance of a fiery death, but I get to go into space? Ok, let's do it!"
While that may be OK for an astronaut on a personal level, every accident throws YEARS of delay into the space program and wastes millions of dollars. We really can't afford another one right now.
And who knows, this decision to fly may be the right one - the foam DID fall away harmlessly, and this is really the first time we've had data on this particular area of the tank at all.
Actually, there are good reasons not to read the small print:
*I have a reasonable expectation that the small print is substantially similar to the big print, only restated in legalese and in more detail. If this is not the case, the small print is legally invalid in many jurisdictions.
*The small print is generally written in legalese, a language designed to obfuscate the meaning from the public. For a non-attorney to read and understand it would require an inordinate amount of time in many cases.
*If you do take the time to read and understand the small print, you've most likely just obligated yourself to it. If you can reasonably argue in court that you had no idea what that small print actually said, but were given an explanation by a salesperson (best to have a tape of this, or a witness) you have a reasonably good chance of having the actual contract you signed be defined to be the salesperson's explanation and the large print.
Now, I'm not saying if I do or don't actually read the small print - just that there ARE very valid reasons not to.
How so? The first amendment is content-neutral.
Let me clarify my comments for you, since you obviously didn't understand my implication.
Apple rumor sites ARE engaging in investigative journalism.
Just because the information they gather is about a commercial product, does not make it irrelevant, does not make it not news, and does not make it not in the public interest.
In this case, Apple's management thinks Apple's interest is contrary to the public interest, and wants to keep information secret. When they fail, they want to use the government to supress those who released the information. This is not acceptable in a free society.
I'm sorry, I'm a Mac user, and Mac consultant - I think Apple has the best computer out there. But sometimes, I find their citizenship deplorable.