Your presumption is based on this being a near-final design. They're working on the physics of hypersonic craft, and once they get that worked out, they can start figuring out how to design an actual delivery system. A likely final version would be launched by a bomber, not a rocket, and look more like a large cruise missile, at least at weapon release. This keeps the bomber even further outside of enemy territory (or even the territory of friends of the enemy).
I see some other options here, including possible inexpensive multistage orbital launch vehicles, but it depends on how hard it is to design and build something that successfully flies that fast.
There were limits to what the police could do in the initial circumstances when all they had was two parties who accused each other of being in the wrong. However, once he said that he would threaten them again, he had both confessed and made a threat of physical violence in the presence of law enforcement officers. They had the ability at that point to cross the jurisdictional lines to make the arrest. He may have been turned over to authorities in Georgia as that's where the crime was committed, but Florida law enforcement was present and thus authorized to take immediate action to protect the workers who were threatened.
It was a tiered system when it was voted on. Those who read even the summary knew that. It was phased to provide time for the labs to ramp up for the expected number of samples being taken.
I've said it many times before, and I'm sure I'll say it many times in the future: California is not a traditional Democrat state. This is a state that demands to keep the death penalty, that was the first to institute three strikes, and that was among the first to adopt mandatory minimums, IIRC. These often pass by significant majorities. Other states may be predictable Democrat bastions; betting on California to go a particular way is often a hazardous bet.
Police would love to be able to do this. I don't know if it would increase their danger, though, as people who know they have warrants out on them might be more likely to flee or lash out if they believe they'll be identified immediately upon a DNA scan.
It doesn't need to fly low. It can basically cross half the globe in a little over an hour. Even with a long-lead tracking system, your air defense with its range of perhaps 200km has a span of about 55 seconds in which to intercept it, which in the scheme of things makes it very difficult. It's not going to be maneuverable, but you have to have both timing to intercept and timing to explode before the inbound arrives so that you catch it in the blast. Alternately, you can try a direct intercept, but that's even more difficult.
And how many people are going to go looking for their accounts and passwords? Wouldn't it be better to contact the site owners to point out the issue and have them deal with fixing the bad passwords by changing them and/or alerting the users that there is a potential problem? If they at least did that and allowed a reasonable time to fix (where reasonable is not a matter of a few hours or even a few days), they'd get a much better image. I know a number of security professionals who see them as no more than children with dangerous weapons, little different from the script-kiddies of old except that the tools are now both easier to use and more powerful. A copy of Backtrack and a few YouTube videos can lead to just about anyone getting into a system if enough systems are scanned (and "enough" doesn't even need to be that many).
You didn't, and neither did Darkness404. He merely provided an example of people who should be qualified in part by virtue of their education and experience, and yet may lack critical knowledge.
Without defining qualification (which is not necessarily required at the beginning of such a conversation, but should be done relatively early), demanding a qualified person becomes an impossible goal.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about current designs. I think we're seeing the return of the five-year PC (actually, I think it showed up with Nehalem if not with Conroe, depending on how hard you pushed certain features). I routinely encourage people to get four-year coverage on their notebooks now as they will almost always be able to use it. My Conroe notebook almost got replaced this year with a new notebook, but it wasn't really necessary and I figure waiting for Ivy Bridge is a better bet anyway, especially after forking over money for a tablet and maybe getting a new phone. Instead, I'm going to get a new battery for it (the current one lasts under five minutes unplugged) for $100 and then make it a secondary system in a year.
But I would not be surprised to see a six-core (or better) CPU and dual graphics chips in the new consoles. I don't underestimate what the graphics guys can do with that if they get access to the full raw power of it. The consoles may not stay ahead as long, but I still expect them to get ahead at the beginning. That's a point on which, though, we may have to agree to disagree.
I don't know that Nintendo is the best example of consoles lagging behind. They haven't gone for the top graphics for a few generations now, instead focusing on how the games are played and keeping hardware costs low. Sony and Microsoft will probably go for much newer technology, with the XBox 360 successor at least using a DX11 chip and maybe something newer than that. Sony will probably go for a more conventional approach than the Cell design, but it's still going to want to push the limits within cost restraints. The difference is that the consoles are going to be dedicated games boxes, and PCs always have to juggle things. All other things equal, dedicated hardware will almost always have a significant edge over general purpose hardware, and that means in many cases that it can hold up to newer generations of hardware.
Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who is very much a PC gaming snob, mostly because console controls always feel so limited and imprecise. The last consoles on which I played significant time was the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis; I've never touched an XBox game of any sort, and the only time I've touched a Playstation that I can recall was holding the mic for Queen's Under Pressure on some music game and to play Super Mario Bros. as a legacy game on a Wii. In both cases, the experience was under ten minutes, though I've watched probably hundreds of hours of others playing on consoles.
The power of console vs. PC cycles on a somewhat regular basis. New consoles hold the edge for a while because almost all of their hardware is geared toward producing what ends up on the screen, whether it's the graphics or the physics of the game. As the hardware ages and the games push its limits, the flexibility of the PC moves ahead as excess computing power not required to run the OS or ancillary software allows companies to expand further, which preps them to some extent for the next generation of console hardware.
Human papillomavirus has been implicated in cancer, particularly cervical cancer, where it's thought to cause nearly all cases. Populations where HPV has been reduced have seen lower rates of cervical cancer, and this is the major reason that Gardasil (HPV vaccine) has become so strongly recommended among girls who have reached sexual maturity.
I thought the always-on DRM stopped the game from being played mid-stream if the Internet connection was lost for more than a brief period of time. At least that's what I remembered from earlier discussions of it.
You have worded my view simply and eloquently. For a long time, I was in the camp of true skepticism without ruling out the possibility. I watched with some eagerness for news that the models were skewed, but as more data came in, I had to let the desire for the theory to be wrong give way for what the data suggested. I am now opposite where I was, in favor of some of the measures in part because they make sense from more than just an AGW perspective but also not entirely convinced.
If the data show something different (and I hope it does), then I'll go where it goes. I am skeptical that this one report will overturn everything, but it might well reduce some of the worst numbers.
The US has already talked of deorbiting the station circa 2020. Russia was the loudest voice against the idea a short while back and started talking about how to take its pieces away from the US pieces and use it as the basis for a new station.
Drinking urine when no other source of fluid is available is better than simply dehydrating and is better than drinking sea water. However, once dehydration has set in, drinking urine only compounds the issue. The body is already trying to get rid of sodium to maintain the proper balance, and drinking the urine just adds it back into the body. This leads to even more thirst as the body craves water to balance things out again.
This is why Les Stroud built the urine still. The water was relatively clean and safer to drink, though you get diminishing returns if that's all you have. It may provide a holdover until you can find a better source of water.
There were certainly cases of that (Tokyo, Dresden, etc.) but there were also thousands of missions that targeted oil facilities, ball bearing plants, engine and vehicle manufacturing, arms depots, and many other military targets. However, dropping an iron bomb from 15,000 feet (the low end of precision bombing outside of dive bombing) has a huge CEP measured in the hundreds of feet, and it only gets worse as altitude increases. There were many cases of a target structure being missed completely while surrounding neighborhoods were leveled.
One of the best examples of combat use (though admittedly outside of an urban environment) of a laser-guided bomb was against a bridge in North Vietnam. Nearly 300 bombs had been dropped over numerous missions but never more than incidental damage was done for the loss of several planes and aircrew. Equipped with laser-guided bombs, a single mission wrecked one of the spans, and two more destroyed it completely. Had it been in the middle of a city, the civilian casualty count throughout that would have been far higher.
Now we can use an aircraft in a climb to release a bomb on an arc from 30 miles away and let it guide itself into the target with a CEP of only a few dozen feet, if that large. The Air Force has been working on developing the Small Diameter Bomb, a 250-pound munition with a new explosive compound intended to destroy small targets while reducing the traditional blast radius that leads to collateral damage, the idea being that a single house or small building can be hit and, while there would be some damage to other structures, they are less likely to suffer catastrophic damage. Close air support becomes less hazardous for everyone except those in the crosshairs, so to speak. Considering the realities of fighting insurgencies, not killing everyone in the neighborhood is a benefit.
There are better ways to kill. When those ways minimize or even remove collateral damage, that improves the outcome. These methods are often not easier, requiring much more training, maintenance, and sometimes cost to implement at a cost of reduction in unwanted damage.
Depriving an enemy of the means to fight is the most basic tenet of warfare. Once gunpowder came on the scene, this got much, much messier over the years until guided weapons started getting involved. What used to take a squadron of aircraft to destroy by dropping hundreds of bombs now takes only one or two aircraft dropping one to three bombs each. What used to devastate neighborhoods whether or not it hit the target now involves significantly less collateral damage.
A lot of news organizations do exit polling, which until recent years has often been remarkably accurate. In the last couple of presidential elections, the accuracy has dropped a bit because fewer people are willing to respond to the exit pollers or they are deliberately giving wrong answers.
Media organizations are often requested by the government to hold onto exit polls for individual states until polls close, something they usually do. The major news organizations screwed up in 2000 when they apparently forgot that Florida is in two time zones and started calling the election for Gore before the panhandle polls closed an hour later. The panhandle is (or at least was) a more Republican area and the whole fight over who won the state might have been avoided depending on the actual turnout and how they voted. They've been more careful since then.
I remembered reading about some work regarding this. I found an article about the use of specially-designed nanoparticles with ligands matching proteins specific to prostate cancer cells. They were able to deliver the drug with a very high level of success compared to nanoparticles without the ligands and delivery of the drug without nanoparticles at all.
Perhaps combining that approach with the magnetic particles will provide a means of simply injecting the patient in a suitable location, waiting an appropriate time for the particles to be delivered, and then turning on the magnetic field.
Re:IT'S ALSO WORLD CAPSLOCK DAY
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 1
According to numerous sources, he never advertised anything that he didn't personally believe in and use, at least since he founded his company. A journalist who interviewed him at his home reported seeing many of the products that he sold around the house and in apparently regular use. He rejected many more items than he accepted. Advertising may be a slimy industry and he may have been hard to avoid, but he did seem to have a spine.
That doesn't mean it is constitutional (even if the supreme court allows it).
That is in your opinion. I'm not happy with all of the Supreme Court decisions over the years, but in practical terms, the Supreme Court does define that which is and is not constitutional.
And what harm does allowing them to purchase pornography do?
I'm not entirely sure. I didn't follow that particular trial. There is a general acceptance, though, that allowing such things is a bad idea, and the last decision to deal with it in the 1970s was presumably based on evidence that it does (or at least did) cause harm to minors. The Court has for more than a century been rather skittish on limits to speech and has put in place tests to determine whether something falls into the narrow exceptions allowed to be regulated or prohibited.
Is that really considered a person's free speech? The company is merely acting for a group of people, but it isn't an actual person (which is what free speech is supposed to apply to).
Since the Court ruled that outdoor advertising limits imposed by the state of Massachusetts were overreaching on a First Amendment basis, the answer to that question would appear to be "yes" in their eyes. I am uncomfortable with providing what are sometimes described as citizenship benefits upon corporate constructions, but as a corporation is composed of one or more persons, I can see an argument where freedom of assembly and freedom of speech combine. I'm not sure if that's how the Court sees it, as I have not read the relevant decisions, but it's about the only mechanism that I can conceive that allows for it.
The state can and does put limits on speech where harm is likely or actual. The Supreme Court has ruled that they must be reasonable restrictions. I haven't yet read the decision itself in its entirety, but the excerpts that I have seen from skimming through it have suggested that one of the major issues is that no significant harm to children has been demonstrated. Children cannot purchase pornography, for example. Libel and slander laws are generally constitutional. The Supreme Court has also found that the state can place certain limits on tobacco advertising such as requiring that in-store ads be no lower than five feet from the floor.
I'm glad to see this ruling come out. I'll read it in more detail later, but there are a few quotes from the majority opinion that make the point strongly.
The California Act...does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children. California does not argue that it is empowered to prohibit selling offensively violent works to adults—and it is wise not to, since that is but a hair’s breadth from the argument rejected in Stevens. Instead, it wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children.
That is unprecedented and mistaken. “[M]inors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.” No doubt a State possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm, but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed. “Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.” (Citations omitted)
Even taking for granted Dr. Anderson’s conclusions that violent video games produce some effect on children’s feelings of aggression, those effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. In his testimony in a similar lawsuit, Dr. Anderson admitted that the “effect sizes” of children’s exposure to violent video games are “about the same” as that produced by their exposure to violence on television. And he admits that the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner, or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated “E” (appropriate for all ages), or even when they “vie[w] a picture of a gun.”
Of course, California has (wisely) declined to restrict Saturday morning cartoons, the sale of games rated for young children, or the distribution of pictures of guns. The consequence is that its regulation is wildly underinclusive when judged against its asserted justification,which in our view is alone enough to defeat it. Underinclusiveness raises serious doubts about whether the government is in fact pursuing the interest it invokes, rather than disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint. Here, California has singled out the purveyors of video games for disfavored treatment—at least when compared to booksellers, cartoonists, and movie producers—and has given no persuasive reason why. (Citations omitted)
[T]he Act’s purported aid to parental authority is vastly overinclusive. Not all of the children who are forbidden to purchase violent video games on their own have parents who care whether they purchase violent video games. While some of the legislation’s effect may indeed be in support of what some parents of the restricted children actually want, its entire effect is only in support of what the State thinks parents ought to want. This is not the narrow tailoring to “assisting parents” that restriction of First Amendment rights requires.
Slashdot Mirror
Your presumption is based on this being a near-final design. They're working on the physics of hypersonic craft, and once they get that worked out, they can start figuring out how to design an actual delivery system. A likely final version would be launched by a bomber, not a rocket, and look more like a large cruise missile, at least at weapon release. This keeps the bomber even further outside of enemy territory (or even the territory of friends of the enemy).
I see some other options here, including possible inexpensive multistage orbital launch vehicles, but it depends on how hard it is to design and build something that successfully flies that fast.
There were limits to what the police could do in the initial circumstances when all they had was two parties who accused each other of being in the wrong. However, once he said that he would threaten them again, he had both confessed and made a threat of physical violence in the presence of law enforcement officers. They had the ability at that point to cross the jurisdictional lines to make the arrest. He may have been turned over to authorities in Georgia as that's where the crime was committed, but Florida law enforcement was present and thus authorized to take immediate action to protect the workers who were threatened.
It was a tiered system when it was voted on. Those who read even the summary knew that. It was phased to provide time for the labs to ramp up for the expected number of samples being taken.
I've said it many times before, and I'm sure I'll say it many times in the future: California is not a traditional Democrat state. This is a state that demands to keep the death penalty, that was the first to institute three strikes, and that was among the first to adopt mandatory minimums, IIRC. These often pass by significant majorities. Other states may be predictable Democrat bastions; betting on California to go a particular way is often a hazardous bet.
Police would love to be able to do this. I don't know if it would increase their danger, though, as people who know they have warrants out on them might be more likely to flee or lash out if they believe they'll be identified immediately upon a DNA scan.
A .0001% chance of a false negative is not the same as the same chance of a false positive.
It doesn't need to fly low. It can basically cross half the globe in a little over an hour. Even with a long-lead tracking system, your air defense with its range of perhaps 200km has a span of about 55 seconds in which to intercept it, which in the scheme of things makes it very difficult. It's not going to be maneuverable, but you have to have both timing to intercept and timing to explode before the inbound arrives so that you catch it in the blast. Alternately, you can try a direct intercept, but that's even more difficult.
And how many people are going to go looking for their accounts and passwords? Wouldn't it be better to contact the site owners to point out the issue and have them deal with fixing the bad passwords by changing them and/or alerting the users that there is a potential problem? If they at least did that and allowed a reasonable time to fix (where reasonable is not a matter of a few hours or even a few days), they'd get a much better image. I know a number of security professionals who see them as no more than children with dangerous weapons, little different from the script-kiddies of old except that the tools are now both easier to use and more powerful. A copy of Backtrack and a few YouTube videos can lead to just about anyone getting into a system if enough systems are scanned (and "enough" doesn't even need to be that many).
You didn't, and neither did Darkness404. He merely provided an example of people who should be qualified in part by virtue of their education and experience, and yet may lack critical knowledge.
Without defining qualification (which is not necessarily required at the beginning of such a conversation, but should be done relatively early), demanding a qualified person becomes an impossible goal.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about current designs. I think we're seeing the return of the five-year PC (actually, I think it showed up with Nehalem if not with Conroe, depending on how hard you pushed certain features). I routinely encourage people to get four-year coverage on their notebooks now as they will almost always be able to use it. My Conroe notebook almost got replaced this year with a new notebook, but it wasn't really necessary and I figure waiting for Ivy Bridge is a better bet anyway, especially after forking over money for a tablet and maybe getting a new phone. Instead, I'm going to get a new battery for it (the current one lasts under five minutes unplugged) for $100 and then make it a secondary system in a year.
But I would not be surprised to see a six-core (or better) CPU and dual graphics chips in the new consoles. I don't underestimate what the graphics guys can do with that if they get access to the full raw power of it. The consoles may not stay ahead as long, but I still expect them to get ahead at the beginning. That's a point on which, though, we may have to agree to disagree.
I don't know that Nintendo is the best example of consoles lagging behind. They haven't gone for the top graphics for a few generations now, instead focusing on how the games are played and keeping hardware costs low. Sony and Microsoft will probably go for much newer technology, with the XBox 360 successor at least using a DX11 chip and maybe something newer than that. Sony will probably go for a more conventional approach than the Cell design, but it's still going to want to push the limits within cost restraints. The difference is that the consoles are going to be dedicated games boxes, and PCs always have to juggle things. All other things equal, dedicated hardware will almost always have a significant edge over general purpose hardware, and that means in many cases that it can hold up to newer generations of hardware.
Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who is very much a PC gaming snob, mostly because console controls always feel so limited and imprecise. The last consoles on which I played significant time was the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis; I've never touched an XBox game of any sort, and the only time I've touched a Playstation that I can recall was holding the mic for Queen's Under Pressure on some music game and to play Super Mario Bros. as a legacy game on a Wii. In both cases, the experience was under ten minutes, though I've watched probably hundreds of hours of others playing on consoles.
The power of console vs. PC cycles on a somewhat regular basis. New consoles hold the edge for a while because almost all of their hardware is geared toward producing what ends up on the screen, whether it's the graphics or the physics of the game. As the hardware ages and the games push its limits, the flexibility of the PC moves ahead as excess computing power not required to run the OS or ancillary software allows companies to expand further, which preps them to some extent for the next generation of console hardware.
Human papillomavirus has been implicated in cancer, particularly cervical cancer, where it's thought to cause nearly all cases. Populations where HPV has been reduced have seen lower rates of cervical cancer, and this is the major reason that Gardasil (HPV vaccine) has become so strongly recommended among girls who have reached sexual maturity.
I thought the always-on DRM stopped the game from being played mid-stream if the Internet connection was lost for more than a brief period of time. At least that's what I remembered from earlier discussions of it.
You have worded my view simply and eloquently. For a long time, I was in the camp of true skepticism without ruling out the possibility. I watched with some eagerness for news that the models were skewed, but as more data came in, I had to let the desire for the theory to be wrong give way for what the data suggested. I am now opposite where I was, in favor of some of the measures in part because they make sense from more than just an AGW perspective but also not entirely convinced.
If the data show something different (and I hope it does), then I'll go where it goes. I am skeptical that this one report will overturn everything, but it might well reduce some of the worst numbers.
The US has already talked of deorbiting the station circa 2020. Russia was the loudest voice against the idea a short while back and started talking about how to take its pieces away from the US pieces and use it as the basis for a new station.
Not all of us get snow in the winter. Even those that do usually don't spend an entire winter with snow-covered roofs, depending on local climate.
Besides, doesn't snow act as an insulating layer?
Drinking urine when no other source of fluid is available is better than simply dehydrating and is better than drinking sea water. However, once dehydration has set in, drinking urine only compounds the issue. The body is already trying to get rid of sodium to maintain the proper balance, and drinking the urine just adds it back into the body. This leads to even more thirst as the body craves water to balance things out again.
This is why Les Stroud built the urine still. The water was relatively clean and safer to drink, though you get diminishing returns if that's all you have. It may provide a holdover until you can find a better source of water.
There were certainly cases of that (Tokyo, Dresden, etc.) but there were also thousands of missions that targeted oil facilities, ball bearing plants, engine and vehicle manufacturing, arms depots, and many other military targets. However, dropping an iron bomb from 15,000 feet (the low end of precision bombing outside of dive bombing) has a huge CEP measured in the hundreds of feet, and it only gets worse as altitude increases. There were many cases of a target structure being missed completely while surrounding neighborhoods were leveled.
One of the best examples of combat use (though admittedly outside of an urban environment) of a laser-guided bomb was against a bridge in North Vietnam. Nearly 300 bombs had been dropped over numerous missions but never more than incidental damage was done for the loss of several planes and aircrew. Equipped with laser-guided bombs, a single mission wrecked one of the spans, and two more destroyed it completely. Had it been in the middle of a city, the civilian casualty count throughout that would have been far higher.
Now we can use an aircraft in a climb to release a bomb on an arc from 30 miles away and let it guide itself into the target with a CEP of only a few dozen feet, if that large. The Air Force has been working on developing the Small Diameter Bomb, a 250-pound munition with a new explosive compound intended to destroy small targets while reducing the traditional blast radius that leads to collateral damage, the idea being that a single house or small building can be hit and, while there would be some damage to other structures, they are less likely to suffer catastrophic damage. Close air support becomes less hazardous for everyone except those in the crosshairs, so to speak. Considering the realities of fighting insurgencies, not killing everyone in the neighborhood is a benefit.
There are better ways to kill. When those ways minimize or even remove collateral damage, that improves the outcome. These methods are often not easier, requiring much more training, maintenance, and sometimes cost to implement at a cost of reduction in unwanted damage.
Depriving an enemy of the means to fight is the most basic tenet of warfare. Once gunpowder came on the scene, this got much, much messier over the years until guided weapons started getting involved. What used to take a squadron of aircraft to destroy by dropping hundreds of bombs now takes only one or two aircraft dropping one to three bombs each. What used to devastate neighborhoods whether or not it hit the target now involves significantly less collateral damage.
A lot of news organizations do exit polling, which until recent years has often been remarkably accurate. In the last couple of presidential elections, the accuracy has dropped a bit because fewer people are willing to respond to the exit pollers or they are deliberately giving wrong answers.
Media organizations are often requested by the government to hold onto exit polls for individual states until polls close, something they usually do. The major news organizations screwed up in 2000 when they apparently forgot that Florida is in two time zones and started calling the election for Gore before the panhandle polls closed an hour later. The panhandle is (or at least was) a more Republican area and the whole fight over who won the state might have been avoided depending on the actual turnout and how they voted. They've been more careful since then.
I remembered reading about some work regarding this. I found an article about the use of specially-designed nanoparticles with ligands matching proteins specific to prostate cancer cells. They were able to deliver the drug with a very high level of success compared to nanoparticles without the ligands and delivery of the drug without nanoparticles at all.
Perhaps combining that approach with the magnetic particles will provide a means of simply injecting the patient in a suitable location, waiting an appropriate time for the particles to be delivered, and then turning on the magnetic field.
According to numerous sources, he never advertised anything that he didn't personally believe in and use, at least since he founded his company. A journalist who interviewed him at his home reported seeing many of the products that he sold around the house and in apparently regular use. He rejected many more items than he accepted. Advertising may be a slimy industry and he may have been hard to avoid, but he did seem to have a spine.
That doesn't mean it is constitutional (even if the supreme court allows it).
That is in your opinion. I'm not happy with all of the Supreme Court decisions over the years, but in practical terms, the Supreme Court does define that which is and is not constitutional.
And what harm does allowing them to purchase pornography do?
I'm not entirely sure. I didn't follow that particular trial. There is a general acceptance, though, that allowing such things is a bad idea, and the last decision to deal with it in the 1970s was presumably based on evidence that it does (or at least did) cause harm to minors. The Court has for more than a century been rather skittish on limits to speech and has put in place tests to determine whether something falls into the narrow exceptions allowed to be regulated or prohibited.
Is that really considered a person's free speech? The company is merely acting for a group of people, but it isn't an actual person (which is what free speech is supposed to apply to).
Since the Court ruled that outdoor advertising limits imposed by the state of Massachusetts were overreaching on a First Amendment basis, the answer to that question would appear to be "yes" in their eyes. I am uncomfortable with providing what are sometimes described as citizenship benefits upon corporate constructions, but as a corporation is composed of one or more persons, I can see an argument where freedom of assembly and freedom of speech combine. I'm not sure if that's how the Court sees it, as I have not read the relevant decisions, but it's about the only mechanism that I can conceive that allows for it.
The state can and does put limits on speech where harm is likely or actual. The Supreme Court has ruled that they must be reasonable restrictions. I haven't yet read the decision itself in its entirety, but the excerpts that I have seen from skimming through it have suggested that one of the major issues is that no significant harm to children has been demonstrated. Children cannot purchase pornography, for example. Libel and slander laws are generally constitutional. The Supreme Court has also found that the state can place certain limits on tobacco advertising such as requiring that in-store ads be no lower than five feet from the floor.
I'm glad to see this ruling come out. I'll read it in more detail later, but there are a few quotes from the majority opinion that make the point strongly.