Yes, that is the same technology, completely stripped of everything that made it awesome. To compare the TouchStream to the Magic Trackpad is to completely underestimate the TouchStream. I recently sold my original TouchStream for 50% more than I paid for it, a decade ago. It boggles the mind that Apple isn't in the business of selling $500 keyboards to users who desperately want to buy them.
I think you didn't get the details of that case right.
What happened is the guy was arrested, and he said he wanted to remain silent. So far so good. Then, the cops continued questioning him, and instead of actually remaining silent, the guy started to talk. Later, at trial, his defense lawyer tried to argue that because he said he wanted to remain silent, that obligated the cops to stop questioning him. The judge disagreed: it was the defendant's obligation to actually remain silent.
So the problem in that case was that the guy did not, in fact, remain silent. When a cop tells you that you have the right to remain silent, that is literally true. Me? Sure, if it were me I would tell the cop I don't want to talk, and to bring me a lawyer; but it would be equally effective to say nothing whatsoever.
I don't wish to leave my car, but I will comply with any lawful order you give me.
I love this. It's perfect because it is so clear, and also because it uses a term of art, which is a subtextual way of telling them look, asshole, I know my rights, and you know my rights, so let's do this one by the fucking book.
Officer, and I required to come with you? (He might say yes, but I suspect lawyers would tell you no.)
Officer, am I under arrest? (And of course, no, you are not under arrest.)
Officer, am I free to go? (This is interesting. My understanding is that yes, you are free to go if you are not under arrest, but that's hardly how the police often see it.)
If you aren't walking away by this point, all you need to say is, I'd like to remain silent, please appoint me a lawyer or let me go. And then, of course, you must actually remain silent until you are either sitting in front of your lawyer, or until you are out of earshot of the police.
If the police were confronted by this 90% er 50% more like as little as 10% of the time, it would be such a gigantic waste of their resources that they'd stop violating your rights.
I don't think you understood me. I'll be more clear. Here's what I said:
the UK is definitely a theocracy, seeing as how its monarch is the head of the official state church. That's pretty much the definition of a theocracy.
And here is the definition of a theocracy (Google "define: theocracy"):
theocracy/THäkrs/ (Noun) A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
So again, "the UK's monarch is the head of the official church state" is "pretty much the definition of a theocracy". Did I lay it out more clearly this time? What I mean specifically is The UK almost perfectly meets the definition of a theocracy.
Okay, okay, so it is a fact that the UK is a theocratic monarchy. That's a fact, but it carries no weight of judgement. My judgement on the other hand, is that it is embarrassing and stupid for modern countries with democratic ideals to have any monarchy, let alone a theocratic monarchy. Now that, that is an opinion, one which many people disagree with me about. Right here, nearby this comment, are other comments defending the UK's theocratic monarchy. That's perfectly fair! Many people quite like their religious queen. That's fine, that's an alternative opinion to mine, but I stand by my opinion that it is embarrassing to have a king or queen in the year 2012.
The downside to having a queen, is that you admit that you don't think royalty is a preposterous idea. There may also be practical concerns, but I'm making an ideological argument: the entire concept of royalty is disgusting and wrong, equally disgusting and wrong as slavery, because it is a violation of the notion of individual liberty.
It's okay for us to disagree, it's just an opinion.
Whoa. Right you are! How did that happen? I (thought I) was responding to a different comment, who said something about states arbitrarily appointing electors. Whether it is my mistake or Slash's mistake, I did not mean to put words into your mouth. They are someone else's words.
I agree. The USA did a great thing by rejecting the entire concept of royalty. To a lesser extent, we sort-of reject other notions of birthright, but we could do a lot better. That's a social issue, though, not a legal issue. Solving the legal issue was an essential first step. The UK hasn't taken that first step yet, and it's about 300 years late. Same with other European monarchies.
You sense wrong. I recognize inherited traits, as well as learned behaviors, and I considered that before writing my comment. Still, there is an outsized tendency for the children of the rich, or famous, or whatever, to become rich, or famous, or whatever. Ask yourself, why are all the Baldwins actors? Is it because they are great actors, each and every one? Why do you know who Chloe Kardashian is?
Many great people were born to great parents, but not most of them. Most great people are great because they achieved greatness, not because they were born great, or had greatness thrust upon them. As humanity moves forward, I'd like to continue to weaken the notion of being born great.
Tell me where in the Constitution is states that all votes have to be counted
Personally I hang it on A4S4, but you could also do it on equal protection or something.
Basically, my claim is that if you don't count all the votes, then you aren't a democracy; if you aren't a democracy, then you aren't a republic; and the Constitution requires a republic (A4S4). That's my armchair constitutional jurisprudence.
We have lots of rules around elections. Most are valid, some are not. If you passed a poll tax, that would be an obvious violation. If you abridged the right to vote on account of sex, that would be a violation. If you collect 50million votes, but only count 49.5million, and the local statutes say that is okay, that is also a violation (in my opinion). I doubt it would ever come to this, but what if we collected 50million votes, counted the first hundred votes, and declared the winner? That would be absurd, because 100 votes isn't enough. So where is the line? How many votes are enough? My answer is, enough so that the winner is absolutely positively known. Also in my opinion, any other standard is absurd, and thus I think Bush v Gore is an absurd decision.
Interesting. I am open to your position. You are saying that the republican form of government doesn't mean that the states must be republics? Even despite the 16th amendment? Are you aware of any jurisprudence on that question? You can educate me, because we just reached the threshold of my understanding. My understanding of the Constitution was that it guaranteed that the USA, from top to bottom, was a republic.
So let me be clear: I do think that the legislature could appoint electors (although that would be bad policy, it wouldn't be unconstitutional), but I don't think electors could be "arbitrarily appointed" (your phrase), which to me basically means they are chosen at random, or perhaps appointed by an unelected body.
I didn't personally count the votes, and neither did you. The NYTime and Washington Post and Wall Street Journal made some claims, and you discount those claims. I personally, having not looked into it beyond news reports, accept the claims of those news organizations. It's fine for us to disagree on the veracity of those news reports.
But really it's nor relevant. Whether Bush or Gore should have won, the basic point stands: in a democracy, you have to be sure who won the elections; and to do that, you have to count enough votes, carefully enough, to be absolutely sure of the outcome. In my opinion, Florida failed in that standard, and the Supreme Court endorsed that failure. I think that is a black mark on our democracy.
Yeah, a partial machine recount was done. In all but the closest races, that is good enough, but in this case that wasn't good enough to determine the winner, and so a real full non-machine recount was required, but not preformed. Hence my ongoing objection to the standing case law of Bush v Gore.
Hmmm, no, it's not party politics, it's about counting the votes. They weren't counted before certifying a winner, despite your insistence that they were, and if they had been the winner would have been Gore.
Since it seems to matter to you, I will add the completely irrelevant fact that I didn't vote for Gore.
Yes, it was a petty swipe at an otherwise nice country. But to be absolutely clear, the UK is definitely a theocracy, seeing as how its monarch is the head of the official state church. That's pretty much the definition of a theocracy.
Can you cite your definition? It's cute, but it is neither in line with my understanding and use of the word, nor the definitions I found by quickly looking around the internet. In every case for my whole life, "republic" has always meant "indirect democracy".
Even if you can cite your definition, and even if it is the first or only definition given by that source, I still object to your implication that it is the common definition used by English speakers.
I don't specifically object to the title of Queen; I object to the notion of royalty. If you want a Queen, then elect one. But to live in (and be proud of) a country with an official, legally mandated birthright caste system would be, to me, embarrassing. You disagree, and that's okay. The fact that Americans think Brits are politically backward hasn't been news for 250 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that is the same technology, completely stripped of everything that made it awesome. To compare the TouchStream to the Magic Trackpad is to completely underestimate the TouchStream. I recently sold my original TouchStream for 50% more than I paid for it, a decade ago. It boggles the mind that Apple isn't in the business of selling $500 keyboards to users who desperately want to buy them.
I think you didn't get the details of that case right.
What happened is the guy was arrested, and he said he wanted to remain silent. So far so good. Then, the cops continued questioning him, and instead of actually remaining silent, the guy started to talk. Later, at trial, his defense lawyer tried to argue that because he said he wanted to remain silent, that obligated the cops to stop questioning him. The judge disagreed: it was the defendant's obligation to actually remain silent.
So the problem in that case was that the guy did not, in fact, remain silent. When a cop tells you that you have the right to remain silent, that is literally true. Me? Sure, if it were me I would tell the cop I don't want to talk, and to bring me a lawyer; but it would be equally effective to say nothing whatsoever.
Yep. I've been told it's 2% here in Madison.
I don't wish to leave my car, but I will comply with any lawful order you give me.
I love this. It's perfect because it is so clear, and also because it uses a term of art, which is a subtextual way of telling them look, asshole, I know my rights, and you know my rights, so let's do this one by the fucking book.
The closest I came was refusing a search. I had to decline several times, but that was successful.
If the police were confronted by this 90% er 50% more like as little as 10% of the time, it would be such a gigantic waste of their resources that they'd stop violating your rights.
Word. That's what I figured. But you wouldn't have been the first person on Slashdot to misquote and mischaracterize someone.
I don't think you understood me. I'll be more clear. Here's what I said:
the UK is definitely a theocracy, seeing as how its monarch is the head of the official state church. That's pretty much the definition of a theocracy.
And here is the definition of a theocracy (Google "define: theocracy"):
theocracy/THäkrs/ (Noun) A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
So again, "the UK's monarch is the head of the official church state" is "pretty much the definition of a theocracy". Did I lay it out more clearly this time? What I mean specifically is The UK almost perfectly meets the definition of a theocracy.
Okay, okay, so it is a fact that the UK is a theocratic monarchy. That's a fact, but it carries no weight of judgement. My judgement on the other hand, is that it is embarrassing and stupid for modern countries with democratic ideals to have any monarchy, let alone a theocratic monarchy. Now that, that is an opinion, one which many people disagree with me about. Right here, nearby this comment, are other comments defending the UK's theocratic monarchy. That's perfectly fair! Many people quite like their religious queen. That's fine, that's an alternative opinion to mine, but I stand by my opinion that it is embarrassing to have a king or queen in the year 2012.
who's code are you quoting? you might have mistakenly replied to the wrong comment; i never mentioned leap years.
Show me with cites like I showed you. Google "define: republic" and tell me what that says.
The downside to having a queen, is that you admit that you don't think royalty is a preposterous idea. There may also be practical concerns, but I'm making an ideological argument: the entire concept of royalty is disgusting and wrong, equally disgusting and wrong as slavery, because it is a violation of the notion of individual liberty.
It's okay for us to disagree, it's just an opinion.
Whoa. Right you are! How did that happen? I (thought I) was responding to a different comment, who said something about states arbitrarily appointing electors. Whether it is my mistake or Slash's mistake, I did not mean to put words into your mouth. They are someone else's words.
I agree. The USA did a great thing by rejecting the entire concept of royalty. To a lesser extent, we sort-of reject other notions of birthright, but we could do a lot better. That's a social issue, though, not a legal issue. Solving the legal issue was an essential first step. The UK hasn't taken that first step yet, and it's about 300 years late. Same with other European monarchies.
You sense wrong. I recognize inherited traits, as well as learned behaviors, and I considered that before writing my comment. Still, there is an outsized tendency for the children of the rich, or famous, or whatever, to become rich, or famous, or whatever. Ask yourself, why are all the Baldwins actors? Is it because they are great actors, each and every one? Why do you know who Chloe Kardashian is?
Many great people were born to great parents, but not most of them. Most great people are great because they achieved greatness, not because they were born great, or had greatness thrust upon them. As humanity moves forward, I'd like to continue to weaken the notion of being born great.
Tell me where in the Constitution is states that all votes have to be counted
Personally I hang it on A4S4, but you could also do it on equal protection or something.
Basically, my claim is that if you don't count all the votes, then you aren't a democracy; if you aren't a democracy, then you aren't a republic; and the Constitution requires a republic (A4S4). That's my armchair constitutional jurisprudence.
We have lots of rules around elections. Most are valid, some are not. If you passed a poll tax, that would be an obvious violation. If you abridged the right to vote on account of sex, that would be a violation. If you collect 50million votes, but only count 49.5million, and the local statutes say that is okay, that is also a violation (in my opinion). I doubt it would ever come to this, but what if we collected 50million votes, counted the first hundred votes, and declared the winner? That would be absurd, because 100 votes isn't enough. So where is the line? How many votes are enough? My answer is, enough so that the winner is absolutely positively known. Also in my opinion, any other standard is absurd, and thus I think Bush v Gore is an absurd decision.
Interesting. I am open to your position. You are saying that the republican form of government doesn't mean that the states must be republics? Even despite the 16th amendment? Are you aware of any jurisprudence on that question? You can educate me, because we just reached the threshold of my understanding. My understanding of the Constitution was that it guaranteed that the USA, from top to bottom, was a republic.
So let me be clear: I do think that the legislature could appoint electors (although that would be bad policy, it wouldn't be unconstitutional), but I don't think electors could be "arbitrarily appointed" (your phrase), which to me basically means they are chosen at random, or perhaps appointed by an unelected body.
I didn't personally count the votes, and neither did you. The NYTime and Washington Post and Wall Street Journal made some claims, and you discount those claims. I personally, having not looked into it beyond news reports, accept the claims of those news organizations. It's fine for us to disagree on the veracity of those news reports.
But really it's nor relevant. Whether Bush or Gore should have won, the basic point stands: in a democracy, you have to be sure who won the elections; and to do that, you have to count enough votes, carefully enough, to be absolutely sure of the outcome. In my opinion, Florida failed in that standard, and the Supreme Court endorsed that failure. I think that is a black mark on our democracy.
No, mostly that the children of the successful are more likely to be successful despite a lack of innate ability. Stuff like that.
I disagree. We can duel definitions if you want.
Yeah, a partial machine recount was done. In all but the closest races, that is good enough, but in this case that wasn't good enough to determine the winner, and so a real full non-machine recount was required, but not preformed. Hence my ongoing objection to the standing case law of Bush v Gore.
Hmmm, no, it's not party politics, it's about counting the votes. They weren't counted before certifying a winner, despite your insistence that they were, and if they had been the winner would have been Gore.
Since it seems to matter to you, I will add the completely irrelevant fact that I didn't vote for Gore.
Oh okay. Well you can easily google it, but here's one source for you: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm
If you want to know more, there are lots of stories about it.
Yes, it was a petty swipe at an otherwise nice country. But to be absolutely clear, the UK is definitely a theocracy, seeing as how its monarch is the head of the official state church. That's pretty much the definition of a theocracy.
Can you cite your definition? It's cute, but it is neither in line with my understanding and use of the word, nor the definitions I found by quickly looking around the internet. In every case for my whole life, "republic" has always meant "indirect democracy".
Republic (n) a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
Even if you can cite your definition, and even if it is the first or only definition given by that source, I still object to your implication that it is the common definition used by English speakers.
I don't specifically object to the title of Queen; I object to the notion of royalty. If you want a Queen, then elect one. But to live in (and be proud of) a country with an official, legally mandated birthright caste system would be, to me, embarrassing. You disagree, and that's okay. The fact that Americans think Brits are politically backward hasn't been news for 250 years.