A lot of people wonder about the strange events in the life of Mark Whitacre. As I was reading through the Fortune article, I immediately noticed the fingerprints of the life of a Christian. So I looked it up and it seems that Christianity played a huge role in the story of Mark Whitacre. Obviously, you can't put that in modern films, but he covers it in other sources and talks freely about it in numerous interviews. You can Google and find plenty of references. I thought I'd mention it, not just because I'm a Christian, but because it answers a lot of questions: his claim that his wife was his "moral compass", why she didn't leave him, and his contrite apology at the end of the interview. I suspect it also has much to do with the CEO who was involved in "prison ministry" that later hired him up at Cypress.
See? We're not all anti-evolutionist, racist, hate-mongers.*:-)
My manager once went down to a local university to tell the students something about the real world with regards to the job market (and to plant some recruitment seeds while he was at it). This same question came up: what do you show?
Some people have mentioned that contributions to open source are a great solution, but interview time is not the time to start joining projects. Fortunately, there's an obvious answer...
The important thing is to demonstrate ability, so the only thing that matters is that the code works and shows you know what you're doing. My manager said the best piece of sample code ever submitted was by a guy who wrote some code specifically for the purpose of interviewing. You'll know what they want to see if you're interviewing and you have plenty of experience with that proprietary stuff you can't show off. Make it work.
The code doesn't have to simple, but let's not make the code request any more complicated than it has to be.
There is no apartheid in The United States. Don't be moronic. The United States is THE definition of an apartheid state. Are Mexicans allowed to vote? No. Are they allowed to travel? No ( sure, then can wait for YEARS to go through 'immigration', but in effect, no, they can't travel ). Are Mexican refugees allowed to return home? No. Are Mexicans treated as equals? Most certainly not.
My laptop uses an Intel chipset, which seems to be pretty well supported under Linux. The ipw2100 and ipw2200 drivers have both worked great for me.
In my desktop, I have an rt2500 which is supported under 32-bit Linux, but the 64-bit driver for Linux is extremely buggy. Ndiswrapper chokes hard on loading the 64-bit version for Windows, so I'm just connecting my ethernet port on that machine.
Other than the above, I have never had trouble getting drivers working with Ndiswrapper, so the current state of Linux WLAN isn't so bad if you include it.
By the way, Marvell are bastards. Don't buy their wireless chips. They're about as OSS friendly as Microsoft.
It's not like it would be impossible to to quantify it. Consider that Intel produces a certain number of processors each year that are then passed on to companies like Dell and to little computer and electronic stores. It wouldn't be too hard to get how many the larger companies buy. We could just ask Intel (assuming that they're willing to divulge that information.)
The remainder of the processors manufactured and sold would be the upper bound on white-boxes. That number would still likely be too high. To make that number a bit more reasonable, you'd have to conduct a very careful survey of computer shops, accounting for the fact that those little shops fold up all the time and function differently, depending on the local market. If you poll the right 1000 shops worldwide, you'd probably get a very accurate picture of how many whiteboxes are built.
The plural of anecdote may not be data, but if done properly, it can be a damned good survey. It's complicated and few people would have the patience nor the training to do it properly, but it's certainly possible. Of course, most people who care whether laptops outsold desktops probably don't care how many whiteboxes are sold.
Well, near the Los Angeles Harbor where all the trucks haul cargo from the docks to downtown, I've seen a few lights that have yellow lights that last less than a second. I'm pretty sure they're just programmed incorrectly because there aren't any cameras on the intersections. In other parts of town, I've seen yellow lights that last about five seconds, which is much more time than I've ever needed to stop at them. So I've had first-hand that yellow light durations can be customized.
However, my anecdotal evidence is mostly worthless and I wasted your time with it. Instead, I will offer the nice little court case that was tried in San Diego Superior Court a few years back. It was a pretty nasty case that shows how those camera lights can go horribly wrong. Here are some links:
Nebulous? They own FairPlay. There's no ambiguity there. The grandfather post was basically saying that Apple isn't going to give up their hold on the AAC+FairPlay combo.
To clarify, the RIAA is not going to allow any store (whether it be iTunes or Napster) to release songs without have a form of DRM. Since the AAC format is basically off-limits*, the only other viable alternative is DRMed WMA files.
Also, don't pretend like AAC is some free format. It is patent-encumbered just like MP3 before it. As far as desktop is concerned, there will always be some guy who will write a decoder for free use. However, people who design hardware are not afforded these luxuries. The patent-holders WILL come down hard to collect their share of the royalties.
For hardware developers, the choice is paying to use AAC and paying for some other non-FairPlay DRM or using WMAs with DRM and paying Microsoft. Either way, they're going to pay. Right now, WMAs are going to look the best. Maybe Ogg Vorbis and FLAC with some cheap DRM method will catch on, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Still, this industry is still a baby. Apple leads today, but WalMart, Napster, Microsoft, or anyone can basically take over.
* Apple thinks that they can basically lock everyone else out of the market by being the only AAC+FairPlay vendor. Right now, they're using iTunes as a way get people to buy iPods, which is a HUGE money-maker for Apple. I'm not so sure this is a good idea, but that's the way it is.
Well that really depends on the country from which the software is based, doesn't it? Just because it's illegal in the US doesn't mean it is or should be illegal anywhere else. Very few companies stand to gain from proprietary codecs and lot's of people are adversely affected as a result. In fact, most people would probably argue against it.
No offense for the people at Real (who I'm sure are decent folk), but I'd rather Real and similar companies go out of business than live in a world where the ability to do anything on a computer is patent-encumbered. Those short-term profits aren't worth the long-term consequences (which get extended every few years when yet another codec hits the market.)
Actually, Les Miserables is a musical. The music and the story go hand in hand. To make half the experience artificial is to taint the other half, also. It's not like people aren't going to be able to tell.
Re:when was the last time you hosed off your ibook
on
Military Grade Laptops
·
· Score: 1
What you say is nonsense. A definition is a generally agreed upon meaning of a word. You are free to create any new meanings for an existing word, but most will find your use of it improper until consensus adds it to the language.
You argue that most people use the phrase "CD-ROM disc" rather than just "CD-ROM". Never have I heard anyone use that phrase. But even so, by definition, it redundant and improper. You are free to continue using the word improperly until it catches on as standard, but I doubt that will ever happen. Why? Because all technical manuals, instruction manuals, and lexicons adhere to the agreed upon defintion. This is where most people learn usage and so this will ensure that, in the future, the word continues to be used properly. If a word is agreed to have a certain meaning by consensus, then that is the word's meaning. Both the site you referred to and dictionary.com agree that the term CD-ROM refers only to the disc.
I will agree with you that CDD never caught on. However, the phrase "CD-ROM drive" did. The dictionary and the author both agree on this matter. You can look up "CD-ROM", "CD-ROM drive", and "drive". You will notice consistant definitions which are in agreement with the author. Your assertion that most people use the phrase "CD-ROM disc" is anecdotal and unverifiable. Additionally, my experiences have been just the opposite of yours.
In summary: You are wrong.
Additionally, you go on to make some rather rude remearks that the author is wrong about the history of acronym for DVD. You then state that the author should check his facts because he is wrong. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Even a small amount of research would have led you to this (as it did me):
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.1
Quoted from the FAQ:
The original acronym came from "digital video disc." Some members of the DVD Forum (see 6.1) tried to express that DVD goes far beyond video by retrofitting the painfully contorted phrase "digital versatile disc," but this has never been officially accepted by the DVD Forum as a whole. The consensus is now that DVD, as an international standard, is simply three letters. After all, who cares what VHS stands for? (Guess what, no one agrees on that one either.
In essence, there is no consensus as for what the letters stand. Originally it meant "digital video disc"; some tried to shoe-horn "digital versatile disc", but there was never an agreement reached. However, the author of the site never makes a claim as to the current meaning. He states merely:
[O]riginally "Digital Video Disc"-even though some manufacturers now claim the initials stand for "Digital Versatile Disc."
What he says is true. It did at one point stand for "digital video disc" and some manufacturers currently do claim that it stand for "digital versatile disc." The dictionary offers both as a possibility and, in the end, both may end up as satisfactory answers.
Again, you are wrong.
You assert that the acronym UFO means anything that is unidentifiable as human. By your definition, this keyboard upon which I am typing is a UFO. I cannot identify it as human. The defintion given in the dictionary and the explanation given by the author agree. By their defintions, if this keyboard is not a UFO for two reasons: 1) It does not fly. 2) I can identify it as a keyboard. My keyboard does fit the description of being an object; however, both sources are quite clear that this is not enough.
If what you meant, however, was that "UFO" is the phrase to be applied to a creature not from Earth, then you are mistaken. Both "extraterrestrial" and "alien" already serve this purpose.
Again, you are wrong.
Also, you claim that the author is "gripe[s]" about punctuation for the acronym OK. You then assert that it is proper for the acronym to be spelled without periods. However, the author agrees with you! If you reread what the author says, you will notice that he ment
It's not silly theory. You, like most Americans, have not the foggiest idea what the Constitution actually says about the roles of the Supreme Court. Interpretting Constitutionality was never a role GIVEN by the Constitution. It was a role that the Supreme Court ASSUMED because they were trying to cover their butts in an embarassing court case. After that, everyone just went along with it. But unless its specifically in the Constitution, the Executive has just as much right deciding the Constitutionality of laws as the Supreme Court.
No, you seem to have a mistaken view of how the Founders had intended this country to be run. The Judcial and Executive were never meant to be equal. They were both designed to be subordinate to Congress where the current mindset of the people was supposed to reside. The Judicial was given the narrow task of deciding whether a law was being misapplied. The Executive branch was invented so that diplomacy could function when a specific leader was needed without the debate that Congress (i.e. diplomatic relations, senior officer of the military)
The Supreme Court was never given the job of inventing invisible ammendments by the Constitution. Neither was it given the ability to decide the Constitutionality of a law. The Supreme Court was given very specific duties and was given the role of the Supreme Court. In the early days, deciding the Constitutionaly was a power that the Supreme Court undertook, but it was never given to any branch (at some point, people thought it should be left up to the executive branch). That's the way it has stayed until modern day.
It's true that the Founders devised a system of checks an balances, but there has always been (and continues to be) a disproprtionate amount of power given to the Congress. If the Congress wasn't so corrupt, you'd see it flexing its powers to slam the Suprme Court and Executive into shape. As it is, all three branches are corrupt. The only time progess is made is when the three branches disagree and debate is sparked.
If the Congress wanted to stop Bush, it could. There are the appropriate mechanisms in the Constitution to prevent the President from going against the people's wishes. One of the checks and balances is screwed up and that's why Bush is allowed to get away with what he has.
By my logic, yes, you do not have a right to drive a car. What makes you think it is a right? It's certainly not even held by the Supreme Court to be a right. Driving is not a right. If tomorrow the State of Utah decided to make driving illegal, there'd me nothing you could do about it. If you want it guarenteed that the Supreme Court would protect your ability to drive, then you'd work to make it an ammendment.
Everything in life is interpretted. Even a factual statement can be misconstrued to mean something it does not. That's not my point.
I'm arguing that people forego the ability to exercise their right to modify the Constitution in hopes that the Supreme Court will make invisible ammendments that the people will agree with. This is a dangerous mentality because there is no guarentee that it will. There have been several times where the Supreme Court has ruled to the benefit of the people, but there have also been several times where it did the opposite.
The Supreme Court should stick to the narrow task of applying the Constitution where possible. If the Constitution does no apply, then it does not apply and the Supreme Court has no business determining constitutionality. If the people don't like the consequences, then they should exercise their right to ammend the Constitution.
Who says you have the "right" to speech? Is a right an ability that is commonly wanted? What percentage has to want it before it's a right? What about the right to rob your house? There are a lot of people that want to rob others. Is that there "right"?
There is no such thing as a fundamental right. Rights are subjective and what people think is a right changes from person to person, depending on environment and culture.
It's nonsense to talk about rights as though they can't be taken away. Laws, threat of force, physical mutilation, or other methods (depending on how effective they are) can be used to restrict rights.
Who says that looking at pornography in a library doesn't count as a right? If the person thinks that it is, then why isn't it? Because you disagree? Because it's against the law?
What the Supreme Court rules only matters until another Supreme Court decides differently. Stretching the meaning of the First Ammendment is stupid because it doesn't guarentee the Internet will always be protected. If Americans were smart, we would make ammendments to the Constituion more often to deal with the chaning world. Instead, we let the Supreme Court invent things to cover situations.
Pornography isn't as protected as other forms of speech. The Supreme Court uses a wide variety of methods to decide on new cases, including the famous "time, place, and manner" restrictions. (They invented this when they gave the example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.) I'm not arguing that the Internet shouldn't be protected, I'm arguing that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that it is. We're relying on the good graces of the Supreme Court. I think that's a dangerous attitude to have.
No, the Constitution was not meant to be interpretted. It functions as an interpretted work because people let the Supreme Court do whatever it wants. Originally, it was meant to be ammended by an outstanding majority whenever important changes were needed. Since these are almost impossible to get, the Supreme Court invented "judicial legislation" and "derived rights." For better or worse, that's how things work. But that's not how things were meant to be.
No it wouldn't. Internet access is neither speech nor press. You can make arguments that it is LIKE speech and that it is LIKE press, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't.
However, it doesn't really matter what you or I think. The Supreme Court is the only body that has final say about the constitutionality of laws. It's hard to predict how they will respond. The Supreme Court has pulled judicial legislation out of its butt to abridge the freedom of speech before. There's not reason they might not pull something out of their butt to decide somethign like this.
But strictly speaking, the Constitution doesn't mention anything about abridging the right to the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people wonder about the strange events in the life of Mark Whitacre. As I was reading through the Fortune article, I immediately noticed the fingerprints of the life of a Christian. So I looked it up and it seems that Christianity played a huge role in the story of Mark Whitacre. Obviously, you can't put that in modern films, but he covers it in other sources and talks freely about it in numerous interviews. You can Google and find plenty of references. I thought I'd mention it, not just because I'm a Christian, but because it answers a lot of questions: his claim that his wife was his "moral compass", why she didn't leave him, and his contrite apology at the end of the interview. I suspect it also has much to do with the CEO who was involved in "prison ministry" that later hired him up at Cypress.
See? We're not all anti-evolutionist, racist, hate-mongers.* :-)
* Some of us are just ex-conartist/embezzlers :-)
My manager once went down to a local university to tell the students something about the real world with regards to the job market (and to plant some recruitment seeds while he was at it). This same question came up: what do you show?
Some people have mentioned that contributions to open source are a great solution, but interview time is not the time to start joining projects. Fortunately, there's an obvious answer...
The important thing is to demonstrate ability, so the only thing that matters is that the code works and shows you know what you're doing. My manager said the best piece of sample code ever submitted was by a guy who wrote some code specifically for the purpose of interviewing. You'll know what they want to see if you're interviewing and you have plenty of experience with that proprietary stuff you can't show off. Make it work.
The code doesn't have to simple, but let's not make the code request any more complicated than it has to be.
My laptop uses an Intel chipset, which seems to be pretty well supported under Linux. The ipw2100 and ipw2200 drivers have both worked great for me.
In my desktop, I have an rt2500 which is supported under 32-bit Linux, but the 64-bit driver for Linux is extremely buggy. Ndiswrapper chokes hard on loading the 64-bit version for Windows, so I'm just connecting my ethernet port on that machine.
Other than the above, I have never had trouble getting drivers working with Ndiswrapper, so the current state of Linux WLAN isn't so bad if you include it.
By the way, Marvell are bastards. Don't buy their wireless chips. They're about as OSS friendly as Microsoft.
I guess that means we're just waiting on Duke Nukem. Come on 3D Realms, the pigs are flying, hell froze over, and we don't even have a demo yet!
It's not like it would be impossible to to quantify it. Consider that Intel produces a certain number of processors each year that are then passed on to companies like Dell and to little computer and electronic stores. It wouldn't be too hard to get how many the larger companies buy. We could just ask Intel (assuming that they're willing to divulge that information.)
The remainder of the processors manufactured and sold would be the upper bound on white-boxes. That number would still likely be too high. To make that number a bit more reasonable, you'd have to conduct a very careful survey of computer shops, accounting for the fact that those little shops fold up all the time and function differently, depending on the local market. If you poll the right 1000 shops worldwide, you'd probably get a very accurate picture of how many whiteboxes are built.
The plural of anecdote may not be data, but if done properly, it can be a damned good survey. It's complicated and few people would have the patience nor the training to do it properly, but it's certainly possible. Of course, most people who care whether laptops outsold desktops probably don't care how many whiteboxes are sold.
Well, near the Los Angeles Harbor where all the trucks haul cargo from the docks to downtown, I've seen a few lights that have yellow lights that last less than a second. I'm pretty sure they're just programmed incorrectly because there aren't any cameras on the intersections. In other parts of town, I've seen yellow lights that last about five seconds, which is much more time than I've ever needed to stop at them. So I've had first-hand that yellow light durations can be customized.
p ://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRedCamArmey01rlc dt-rep.aspd ar/sdmotion. htm0 13lig hts.htm/ www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/west/200 2/04/29/partingshots/18901.htm
However, my anecdotal evidence is mostly worthless and I wasted your time with it. Instead, I will offer the nice little court case that was tried in San Diego Superior Court a few years back. It was a pretty nasty case that shows how those camera lights can go horribly wrong. Here are some links:
http://www.ticketassassin.com/ut_0400.html
htt
http://www.members.shaw.ca/halotic/ra
http://www.snitch.com/sandiego/content/20041
http://www.notbored.org/aaa.html
http:/
must-see for voters and non-voters
What about for the rest of us!?
Socialists? I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Nebulous? They own FairPlay. There's no ambiguity there. The grandfather post was basically saying that Apple isn't going to give up their hold on the AAC+FairPlay combo.
To clarify, the RIAA is not going to allow any store (whether it be iTunes or Napster) to release songs without have a form of DRM. Since the AAC format is basically off-limits*, the only other viable alternative is DRMed WMA files.
Also, don't pretend like AAC is some free format. It is patent-encumbered just like MP3 before it. As far as desktop is concerned, there will always be some guy who will write a decoder for free use. However, people who design hardware are not afforded these luxuries. The patent-holders WILL come down hard to collect their share of the royalties.
For hardware developers, the choice is paying to use AAC and paying for some other non-FairPlay DRM or using WMAs with DRM and paying Microsoft. Either way, they're going to pay. Right now, WMAs are going to look the best. Maybe Ogg Vorbis and FLAC with some cheap DRM method will catch on, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Still, this industry is still a baby. Apple leads today, but WalMart, Napster, Microsoft, or anyone can basically take over.
* Apple thinks that they can basically lock everyone else out of the market by being the only AAC+FairPlay vendor. Right now, they're using iTunes as a way get people to buy iPods, which is a HUGE money-maker for Apple. I'm not so sure this is a good idea, but that's the way it is.
Well that really depends on the country from which the software is based, doesn't it? Just because it's illegal in the US doesn't mean it is or should be illegal anywhere else. Very few companies stand to gain from proprietary codecs and lot's of people are adversely affected as a result. In fact, most people would probably argue against it.
No offense for the people at Real (who I'm sure are decent folk), but I'd rather Real and similar companies go out of business than live in a world where the ability to do anything on a computer is patent-encumbered. Those short-term profits aren't worth the long-term consequences (which get extended every few years when yet another codec hits the market.)
That's because they can.
There's a difference between diplomatic immunity and investigating a crimes on someone else's turf.
Actually, Les Miserables is a musical. The music and the story go hand in hand. To make half the experience artificial is to taint the other half, also. It's not like people aren't going to be able to tell.
What you say is nonsense. A definition is a generally agreed upon meaning of a word. You are free to create any new meanings for an existing word, but most will find your use of it improper until consensus adds it to the language.
You argue that most people use the phrase "CD-ROM disc" rather than just "CD-ROM". Never have I heard anyone use that phrase. But even so, by definition, it redundant and improper. You are free to continue using the word improperly until it catches on as standard, but I doubt that will ever happen. Why? Because all technical manuals, instruction manuals, and lexicons adhere to the agreed upon defintion. This is where most people learn usage and so this will ensure that, in the future, the word continues to be used properly.
If a word is agreed to have a certain meaning by consensus, then that is the word's meaning. Both the site you referred to and dictionary.com agree that the term CD-ROM refers only to the disc.
I will agree with you that CDD never caught on. However, the phrase "CD-ROM drive" did. The dictionary and the author both agree on this matter. You can look up "CD-ROM", "CD-ROM drive", and "drive". You will notice consistant definitions which are in agreement with the author. Your assertion that most people use the phrase "CD-ROM disc" is anecdotal and unverifiable. Additionally, my experiences have been just the opposite of yours.
In summary: You are wrong.
Additionally, you go on to make some rather rude remearks that the author is wrong about the history of acronym for DVD. You then state that the author should check his facts because he is wrong. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Even a small amount of research would have led you to this (as it did me):
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.1
Quoted from the FAQ:
The original acronym came from "digital video disc." Some members of the DVD Forum (see 6.1) tried to express that DVD goes far beyond video by retrofitting the painfully contorted phrase "digital versatile disc," but this has never been officially accepted by the DVD Forum as a whole. The consensus is now that DVD, as an international standard, is simply three letters. After all, who cares what VHS stands for? (Guess what, no one agrees on that one either.
In essence, there is no consensus as for what the letters stand. Originally it meant "digital video disc"; some tried to shoe-horn "digital versatile disc", but there was never an agreement reached. However, the author of the site never makes a claim as to the current meaning. He states merely:
[O]riginally "Digital Video Disc"-even though some manufacturers now claim the initials stand for "Digital Versatile Disc."
What he says is true. It did at one point stand for "digital video disc" and some manufacturers currently do claim that it stand for "digital versatile disc." The dictionary offers both as a possibility and, in the end, both may end up as satisfactory answers.
Again, you are wrong.
You assert that the acronym UFO means anything that is unidentifiable as human. By your definition, this keyboard upon which I am typing is a UFO. I cannot identify it as human. The defintion given in the dictionary and the explanation given by the author agree. By their defintions, if this keyboard is not a UFO for two reasons: 1) It does not fly. 2) I can identify it as a keyboard. My keyboard does fit the description of being an object; however, both sources are quite clear that this is not enough.
If what you meant, however, was that "UFO" is the phrase to be applied to a creature not from Earth, then you are mistaken. Both "extraterrestrial" and "alien" already serve this purpose.
Again, you are wrong.
Also, you claim that the author is "gripe[s]" about punctuation for the acronym OK. You then assert that it is proper for the acronym to be spelled without periods. However, the author agrees with you! If you reread what the author says, you will notice that he ment
It's not silly theory. You, like most Americans, have not the foggiest idea what the Constitution actually says about the roles of the Supreme Court. Interpretting Constitutionality was never a role GIVEN by the Constitution. It was a role that the Supreme Court ASSUMED because they were trying to cover their butts in an embarassing court case. After that, everyone just went along with it. But unless its specifically in the Constitution, the Executive has just as much right deciding the Constitutionality of laws as the Supreme Court.
No, you seem to have a mistaken view of how the Founders had intended this country to be run. The Judcial and Executive were never meant to be equal. They were both designed to be subordinate to Congress where the current mindset of the people was supposed to reside. The Judicial was given the narrow task of deciding whether a law was being misapplied. The Executive branch was invented so that diplomacy could function when a specific leader was needed without the debate that Congress (i.e. diplomatic relations, senior officer of the military)
The Supreme Court was never given the job of inventing invisible ammendments by the Constitution. Neither was it given the ability to decide the Constitutionality of a law. The Supreme Court was given very specific duties and was given the role of the Supreme Court. In the early days, deciding the Constitutionaly was a power that the Supreme Court undertook, but it was never given to any branch (at some point, people thought it should be left up to the executive branch). That's the way it has stayed until modern day.
It's true that the Founders devised a system of checks an balances, but there has always been (and continues to be) a disproprtionate amount of power given to the Congress. If the Congress wasn't so corrupt, you'd see it flexing its powers to slam the Suprme Court and Executive into shape. As it is, all three branches are corrupt. The only time progess is made is when the three branches disagree and debate is sparked.
If the Congress wanted to stop Bush, it could. There are the appropriate mechanisms in the Constitution to prevent the President from going against the people's wishes. One of the checks and balances is screwed up and that's why Bush is allowed to get away with what he has.
By my logic, yes, you do not have a right to drive a car. What makes you think it is a right? It's certainly not even held by the Supreme Court to be a right. Driving is not a right. If tomorrow the State of Utah decided to make driving illegal, there'd me nothing you could do about it. If you want it guarenteed that the Supreme Court would protect your ability to drive, then you'd work to make it an ammendment.
Everything in life is interpretted. Even a factual statement can be misconstrued to mean something it does not. That's not my point.
I'm arguing that people forego the ability to exercise their right to modify the Constitution in hopes that the Supreme Court will make invisible ammendments that the people will agree with. This is a dangerous mentality because there is no guarentee that it will. There have been several times where the Supreme Court has ruled to the benefit of the people, but there have also been several times where it did the opposite.
The Supreme Court should stick to the narrow task of applying the Constitution where possible. If the Constitution does no apply, then it does not apply and the Supreme Court has no business determining constitutionality. If the people don't like the consequences, then they should exercise their right to ammend the Constitution.
Who says you have the "right" to speech? Is a right an ability that is commonly wanted? What percentage has to want it before it's a right? What about the right to rob your house? There are a lot of people that want to rob others. Is that there "right"?
There is no such thing as a fundamental right. Rights are subjective and what people think is a right changes from person to person, depending on environment and culture.
It's nonsense to talk about rights as though they can't be taken away. Laws, threat of force, physical mutilation, or other methods (depending on how effective they are) can be used to restrict rights.
Who says that looking at pornography in a library doesn't count as a right? If the person thinks that it is, then why isn't it? Because you disagree? Because it's against the law?
Where do you draw the line?
What the Supreme Court rules only matters until another Supreme Court decides differently. Stretching the meaning of the First Ammendment is stupid because it doesn't guarentee the Internet will always be protected. If Americans were smart, we would make ammendments to the Constituion more often to deal with the chaning world. Instead, we let the Supreme Court invent things to cover situations.
Pornography isn't as protected as other forms of speech. The Supreme Court uses a wide variety of methods to decide on new cases, including the famous "time, place, and manner" restrictions. (They invented this when they gave the example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.) I'm not arguing that the Internet shouldn't be protected, I'm arguing that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that it is. We're relying on the good graces of the Supreme Court. I think that's a dangerous attitude to have.
No, the Constitution was not meant to be interpretted. It functions as an interpretted work because people let the Supreme Court do whatever it wants. Originally, it was meant to be ammended by an outstanding majority whenever important changes were needed. Since these are almost impossible to get, the Supreme Court invented "judicial legislation" and "derived rights." For better or worse, that's how things work. But that's not how things were meant to be.
No it wouldn't. Internet access is neither speech nor press. You can make arguments that it is LIKE speech and that it is LIKE press, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't.
However, it doesn't really matter what you or I think. The Supreme Court is the only body that has final say about the constitutionality of laws. It's hard to predict how they will respond. The Supreme Court has pulled judicial legislation out of its butt to abridge the freedom of speech before. There's not reason they might not pull something out of their butt to decide somethign like this.
But strictly speaking, the Constitution doesn't mention anything about abridging the right to the Internet.
You'd pay $400 for a processor upgrade? I knew Apple fans liked to burn money ... but wow.
So thankfully there are a few things in the world that Bill Gates can't buy!
But for everything else, there's Mastercard.
As you can clearly see if you actually looked at the parent's subject line, we knew that.
That's nothing. They skipped 1902 version numbers between Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I guess that's how many it takes before they make any progress.