By the way, to respond more specifically on the douchebag case, your claim that she doesn't deserve to serve as one of the nine justices because of her position there is just absurd -- we had a 6-3 decision just a couple years ago in the "bong hits for jesus" case that also greatly limited student speech "outside of school by enforcement actions inside school" -- almost exactly the concern you have your underwear in a bunch about concerning this decision. If you think 6 of the justices currently on the Court don't belong there, good luck with gaining adherents for that view -- I'm sure your newsletter will do very well. For me I take some comfort in the fact that when she decided a case concerning expressly POLITICAL speech in schools she sided with the student. Sure it's not ideal - I think the students shouldve been supported in Morse v. Frederick and in the douchebag case as well - but it does leave an opening for more cogent arguments from those representing the students (arguably "political speech" is still at issue in both of those cases as well!). In any case, my overall point stands - she is a pretty mainstream jurist who looks at things on a case-by-case basis rather than from an absolutist ideological position. I think it would be nice to see a couple liberal ideologues on the Court to balance out the wacky right-wing ideologues there, but I can't be terribly upset about someone like Sotomayor who actually looks at the merits of each case and makes a careful nuanced decision (even though I tend to disagree with some of those decisions).
Well there's a big difference between claiming that she's not a first amendment absolutist and claiming that she's a "constitutional nightmare." She may not agree with YOU on what the first amendment says, but she clearly "gets it right" according to her constitutional principles (which are pretty consistent with what most constitutional liberals would say on these issues). Saying that she doesn't AGREE with your interpretation of parts of the Bill of Rights is a far cry from saying she "misunderstands" them, or that she has a "head injury" or is a "traitor to her oath". I mean, how can you be serious? Who did you expect Obama to pick for the Court, Raplh Nader??
Yeah, I'd love to see someone more radical on the court too but if you think that's going to happen you're living in a dream world. She's no more a "constitutional nightmare" than the justice she's likely to be replacing.
True - especially when those two statements are taken blatantly out of context before being repeated ad nauseam in the echo chamber of the right-wing blogosphere... Read the full context of the quote (someone else cited it below and it is modded up) to get a better sense of her position. There's plenty of things to criticize about her I'm sure, but racism isn't one of them.
"I'm not supposed to say this but guess what? We legislate from the bench. Oops, I'm being recorded, I shouldn't say that."
This is another lie being spread in right-wing talking points. She's not my favorite pick either but this is a false justification for criticizing her. She never said this. What she actually said, in context, is far less controversial, and has been supported by conservatives as well as liberals. Read the details here.
That's a very one-sided view of Sotomayor's record on constitutional issues. I share your concerns but I think she's very much a case-by-case jurist and concluding from these cases that she's a "constitutional nightmare" is a bit extreme. Here's a much more detailed and careful rundown of her first amendment rulings than the link you gave, which only mentions the infamous "douchebag" decision. I agree that's a pretty sad decision in terms of student first amendment rights, but she's also got the Guiles v. Marineau case to her credit on the same issue (the difference being the latter more obviously dealt with clearly political speech). I agree Sotomayor raises cause for concern, but calling her a "constitutional nightmare" is a bit hysterical.
The question I have, is what is the oldest working piece of equipment fellow Slashdotters have out there?
Well as far as modem technology goes I've still got a classic 1200 baud Hayes modem; must be from the early 80s I would guess (perhaps older?); it was working fine when I stopped using it around 1993 or so (upgraded to 2400 baud FTW!!)*... I'm sure it would still work if I plugged it in today but I'm not hunting down an RS-232 adapter to find out. If we want to talk audio gear I've got some much older items, including a pair of AR speakers from the 60s that still sound pretty damn good... Now get the hell off my lawn!
* (and back then FTW still meant Fuck the World!!)
What's really sad is people who use the phrase "just a theory" to disparage the conclusions of a consensus of actual scientists using the actual scientific method to reach those conclusions. Whether you do that for creationism or your anti-global-warming-tit pet peeve or whatever is immaterial; the gesture is the same anti-intellectual bullshit.
No, it isn't. It's a theory. You can debate how well supported the theory is, but to claim it is a fact is a sign of religion seeping into science.
Another sign of religion seeping into science is blatant misuse of the term "theory" as if it means "on par with any random speculation." Same basic tactic being used by creationists to suggest that evolution is "just a theory."
Why not ask them to support alternative energy solutions instead? Higher gas taxes are actually a good thing for society in the longer term as they might help wean us off of the petroleum nipple.
Keep in mind this is a beta, folks; if you're using it, you're presumably volunteering to help inform Apple about stuff like this. So in addition to letting everyone else know safari is doing this, it might be a good idea to let Apple know that it is unacceptable in a web browser. Presumably the company released the beta in order to solicit just this kind of information from its users; hopefully enough concern from users will lead them to take these "features" out of the final release candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, to respond more specifically on the douchebag case, your claim that she doesn't deserve to serve as one of the nine justices because of her position there is just absurd -- we had a 6-3 decision just a couple years ago in the "bong hits for jesus" case that also greatly limited student speech "outside of school by enforcement actions inside school" -- almost exactly the concern you have your underwear in a bunch about concerning this decision. If you think 6 of the justices currently on the Court don't belong there, good luck with gaining adherents for that view -- I'm sure your newsletter will do very well. For me I take some comfort in the fact that when she decided a case concerning expressly POLITICAL speech in schools she sided with the student. Sure it's not ideal - I think the students shouldve been supported in Morse v. Frederick and in the douchebag case as well - but it does leave an opening for more cogent arguments from those representing the students (arguably "political speech" is still at issue in both of those cases as well!). In any case, my overall point stands - she is a pretty mainstream jurist who looks at things on a case-by-case basis rather than from an absolutist ideological position. I think it would be nice to see a couple liberal ideologues on the Court to balance out the wacky right-wing ideologues there, but I can't be terribly upset about someone like Sotomayor who actually looks at the merits of each case and makes a careful nuanced decision (even though I tend to disagree with some of those decisions).
Well there's a big difference between claiming that she's not a first amendment absolutist and claiming that she's a "constitutional nightmare." She may not agree with YOU on what the first amendment says, but she clearly "gets it right" according to her constitutional principles (which are pretty consistent with what most constitutional liberals would say on these issues). Saying that she doesn't AGREE with your interpretation of parts of the Bill of Rights is a far cry from saying she "misunderstands" them, or that she has a "head injury" or is a "traitor to her oath". I mean, how can you be serious? Who did you expect Obama to pick for the Court, Raplh Nader??
Yeah, I'd love to see someone more radical on the court too but if you think that's going to happen you're living in a dream world. She's no more a "constitutional nightmare" than the justice she's likely to be replacing.
True - especially when those two statements are taken blatantly out of context before being repeated ad nauseam in the echo chamber of the right-wing blogosphere... Read the full context of the quote (someone else cited it below and it is modded up) to get a better sense of her position. There's plenty of things to criticize about her I'm sure, but racism isn't one of them.
"I'm not supposed to say this but guess what? We legislate from the bench. Oops, I'm being recorded, I shouldn't say that."
This is another lie being spread in right-wing talking points. She's not my favorite pick either but this is a false justification for criticizing her. She never said this. What she actually said, in context, is far less controversial, and has been supported by conservatives as well as liberals. Read the details here.
That's a very one-sided view of Sotomayor's record on constitutional issues. I share your concerns but I think she's very much a case-by-case jurist and concluding from these cases that she's a "constitutional nightmare" is a bit extreme. Here's a much more detailed and careful rundown of her first amendment rulings than the link you gave, which only mentions the infamous "douchebag" decision. I agree that's a pretty sad decision in terms of student first amendment rights, but she's also got the Guiles v. Marineau case to her credit on the same issue (the difference being the latter more obviously dealt with clearly political speech). I agree Sotomayor raises cause for concern, but calling her a "constitutional nightmare" is a bit hysterical.
Well it's been in the queue since 1989 but since he's doing everything at 300 baud that's how long it took to get to this task.
Let's see, 2 modems, 4 cans, 2 strings... how many cups?
So, what do I need to do, type really really slow?
Maybe you can package your comment as the payload of an SQL injection?
The question I have, is what is the oldest working piece of equipment fellow Slashdotters have out there?
Well as far as modem technology goes I've still got a classic 1200 baud Hayes modem; must be from the early 80s I would guess (perhaps older?); it was working fine when I stopped using it around 1993 or so (upgraded to 2400 baud FTW!!)* ... I'm sure it would still work if I plugged it in today but I'm not hunting down an RS-232 adapter to find out. If we want to talk audio gear I've got some much older items, including a pair of AR speakers from the 60s that still sound pretty damn good... Now get the hell off my lawn!
* (and back then FTW still meant Fuck the World!!)
What's really sad is people who use the phrase "just a theory" to disparage the conclusions of a consensus of actual scientists using the actual scientific method to reach those conclusions. Whether you do that for creationism or your anti-global-warming-tit pet peeve or whatever is immaterial; the gesture is the same anti-intellectual bullshit.
No, it doesn't. But the people he's referring to are scientists, not "climate-change types."
No, it isn't. It's a theory. You can debate how well supported the theory is, but to claim it is a fact is a sign of religion seeping into science.
Another sign of religion seeping into science is blatant misuse of the term "theory" as if it means "on par with any random speculation." Same basic tactic being used by creationists to suggest that evolution is "just a theory."
why should water be essential for life?
Because nothing truly brings out the flavor of a fine Scotch like a drop of water.
Is there an app you can use to edit wikipedia or just read it? The mobile site doesn't allow editing or logging in.
You mean "scientists."
yes but they still do taste quite bitter.
Aw, come on now. There are a few of us young people who actually prefer the Zune to the iPod. I happen to be one of them.
Absolutely, me too, I think everyone should take a second look at the Zune... Aww just kidding, I own an iPod like everyone else in the world.
It was relatively big in size but it was comfortable to wear in my pockets.
Plus it's a great set-up for tried-and-true office humor; "Yes, I am happy to see you, but that actually is a Nokia in my pocket."
The idea that a Buddhist is some Vietnamese guy with saffron robes and a shaved head chanting "Ommm" all day is not quite in touch with reality.
That is true. These days, Buddhists can choose from several different colors of robe.
Well, it is Polaroid, after all, so they didn't have to wait for any developments before bringing out the product.
you use the ruler to measure the pizza
He's right about that word being used everywhere now, though; it's just ubiquitous!!
Why is this news? Don't we expect windows to be found on any brand new windows netbook?
Why not ask them to support alternative energy solutions instead? Higher gas taxes are actually a good thing for society in the longer term as they might help wean us off of the petroleum nipple.
Keep in mind this is a beta, folks; if you're using it, you're presumably volunteering to help inform Apple about stuff like this. So in addition to letting everyone else know safari is doing this, it might be a good idea to let Apple know that it is unacceptable in a web browser. Presumably the company released the beta in order to solicit just this kind of information from its users; hopefully enough concern from users will lead them to take these "features" out of the final release candidate.