Unfortunately, the rules of civil procedure have really tilted things so that you need to sue everybody who could possibly at fault at first and then sort out who's really at fault by the time it comes to trial. Otherwise, you run the risk of the statute of limitations running out in the time it took you to find out that it's really the other guy's fault.
The constitution is the law, it is not a list of suggestions.
So's everything that Congress passes and the President signs off on until someone says otherwise. Just because the Constitution is a higher level of law than that passed by the legislature doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally a construct of man, subject to the foibles and fashions of the ages.
It's not like the Constitution is some holy writ or platonic ideal that rigidly defines the government. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is -- just like any other law.
Before Brown v. the Board of Education, segregation was Constitutional under the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. After Brown, segregation wasn't Constitutional. Note that this has no effect on whether or not segregation was morally right. Constitutional does not always imply "good" or "sensible." It merely implies that it conforms with the Constitution.
The idea of subverting the Constitution is silly at face value. The idea of subverting the America values that were present at its writing though... That's something to be upset about potentially. Besides, after reading Raich v. Gonzalez, I'm not really sure the court could've reasonably ruled any other way without completely destroying the commerce clause. If you don't like Stevens' opinion, at least look at Scalia's concurrence on the Necessary and Proper Clause.
While the federal government routinely, and with the blessing of the Supreme court, passes laws that blatantly violate the commerce clause...
Logical error. The government does not pass laws that violate the commerce clause if the Supreme court says they don't. That's how our government works.
Besides, I think you need to read up on Massachusetts vs. EPA. This suit is probably going to be very similar considering that it was over much the same thing. MS v. EPA was an attempt to force the government to perform its duties to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant in absence of Congressional instruction to or not to do so.
The new lawsuit will be a similar attempt to compel the EPA to perform its mandated duties to grant CA and other states permission to create stricter regulations than the Congressionally mandated minimums. The EPA has dragged its feet for years in signing off on this, claiming that they didn't think they had the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Fortunately, MS v. EPA has cleared that up.
Assuming that the SCOTUS doesn't decide to reverse itself unexpectedly or attempt to wiggle out under jurisdictional issues such as interfering with the powers of the executive or such as the doctrine against getting involved in political decisions, it's probably a slam dunk case.
Then again, I'm not as familiar with the CAA as I'd like to be. The decision might be a discretionary power of the EPA at which point the SCOTUS would simply pass the buck.
When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't have a free market. You have the US destroying their competitiveness (and their ability to innovate) while doing little to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").
The fewer countries that fail to make an effort to solve the problem, the less people the remaining bad actors will have to point to and say that they don't need to do anything.
What, you didn't think that the Chinese and the Indians don't point to us when people claims that they need to do better?
The problem is people like you who seem to think that our country doesn't need to act until everybody else has acted first. With that kind of attitude, no one ever will.
First, Oregon is in the 9th Circuit, so this decision isn't binding, but Oregon has one of the nation's most powerful free speech clauses in their constitution. Practically any state or local attempt to restrict obscenity gets struck down in the state courts.
The first is why Portland has the highest number of strip clubs per capita in the nation. It's a statistic that the local chamber of commerce doesn't brag about. (Strange that I've seen more in GA than in OR, but maybe I just live in the wrong/right place...)
The story is subtle and slowly revealed -- from the growing realization that no human is watching you to see test areas that are broken down to finally wandering behind the scenes and getting the hints of what happened at the facility and the occasional clues that the computer is lying to you. Then there's the gleefully sociopathic devolution of her behavior towards you as it becomes more and more apparent that she sees you as a rodent to run though a maze an euthanize when it's all over.
The way the madness of the computer slowly becomes apparent and the way that she relentlessly screws with your mind -- from telling you that the Weighted Companion Cube will not stab you and cannot talk, but if it does you should just ignore it to the whole cake obsession to the callous way in which she highlights unnecessarily deadly parts of the test and so on -- are both masterful examples of storytelling.
It's good because it doesn't slap you in the face with what's going on. It's also a great example of good dark comedy writing.
"Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me."
"That thing you broke isn't important to me. Not any more. It's the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit; it makes shoes for orphans. Nice job breaking it, hero."
"Cake, and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test. Thank you for helping us help you help us all!"
"Although the euthanizing process is remarkably painful, 8 out of 10 Aperture Science engineers believe that the companion cube is most likely incapable of feeling much pain."
Yeah, whoops. Odd, I thought that's what I wrote but I guess I didn't.
If you think this is the only example of Google's antipathy towards "Red State America", you haven't been paying attention....
I think Google perceives that it can afford to pull these sorts of stunts, or e.g. never making a special page for Memorial or Veterans Day, without significant cost.
A) They can. That's my entire point. Boycotts based on "Culture War" BS never make hardly any sort of impact if a company refuses to flinch in the first month or two.
B) They've never made a page for Arbor Day. Does that mean that they hate trees? They've never celebrated Labor Day, either. Does that mean that they hate workers rights? Are you going to read something into the fact that they haven't celebrated President's Day or Columbus Day? Plus, frankly, they'd be more likely to touch off a political firestorm by action than by inaction.
The real problem here is that partisans of all stripes is that they have a grudge against the world. Petty crap like the lack of celebration for two war memorial holidays are seen as validation of paranoid beliefs that the world is filled with large institutions that are out to make your life suck for their own selfish reasons.
Liberal partisans worry about elites trying to destroy the American way of life for their own conscienceless benefit. Conservative partisans worry about the same exact thing for different definitions of destroying the American way of life. In the end, it all comes down to pervasive confirmation bias and an ill temper with the world.
Why should Google pay any attention to people who find offense at everything around them in society and who don't have the attention span nor the willpower to boycott doing business with them -- especially when their complaints are nothing but making a mountain out of a molehill? Sane conservatives will realize that this is a huge to-do about nothing, and the fringe ax-grinders are too small to really care about.
In the time it would take for a court case by MoveOn over trademark infringement to fight its way through courts, this whole mess will be forgotten by all but the most ardent, paranoid grudge-carriers. Even if that weren't true, no company is going to deliberately break the law and expose themselves to liability just to keep a few political loudmouths happy unless said company is run by political loudmouths of the same stripe.
Google only did what's logical, and political partisans have way too puffed up of an opinion of their own importance.
Yes, but what percentage of the US conservative population is so brazenly partisan that they'd be upset at a company for complying with a request to take down an ad from an organization who owns a copyright used in said ad?
And is the ephemeral wrath of partisans who will inevitably find someone else to be more ticked off at in a month or two worth more than a potential lawsuit from MoveOn?
People like to self-inflate their own group's importance, but how much do you think Disney is really suffering from having Gay Days at Disneyworld after over a decade since the initial furor started? For that matter, how's anyone in "the liberal media" faring in spite of near-religious conservative belief in their bias? The current flap is nothing but a tempest in a teacup.
Were these examples deliberately chosen to be hilariously bad?
For example, imagine your 12 year old daughter being given a death sentence for deliberately turning an AI program off improperly and "killing" the program. Would you be willing to say the life of the AI program is equal to your daughter's life? Unlikely. I would hope that a society open and respectful enough to grant an inherent right to life to AIs would no longer be willing to execute minors, much less for accidental causes of death.
You realize we don't currently execute anyone under 18, and that we don't execute people for reckless or negligent death -- only for deliberate murder, right?
People may call it marriage but it won't be, any more than wrecking an AI driven car will be involuntary AI-slaughter. *Cough* Who was it again that wrecked the AI-driven car?
Japanese humour is usually miles ahead of the stupid western humour... You need to watch more live-action Japanese comedy shows before making that judgment. I really do not understand how the same culture produces both outrageously funny comedy anime and their horrible, tedious variety shows.
Also, watch better Western stuff. Good cartoons aren't that hard to find.
Nearly ever single line in the opening paragraph sounds really wrong when read that way, but the king is:
Aperture Science. We do what we must because we can. That gets my vote for both the most sinister corporate motto ever, as well as the most sinister thing I've heard a sociopathic computer say. As a bonus is sounds really naughty in this context.
Well, it gives a whole new meaning to "Aperture Science," anyway.
People use them for opinions, abuse, classification, and sometimes just as an attempt at wit. The system can be all of those things, but when we see abuse we definitely try to stop that. Ehrg. I personally wouldn't have accepted responsibility for policing that tags. People frequently troll in the tags, and some are often left standing in such a manner as to reflect certain biases and slant the discussion one way or another.
Take for example, the recent story on using TCMS to provoke feelings of religious awe tagged with "nosuchthingasgod" or other more offensive tags (which *have* been removed).
What's your wikipedia user name, so we can confirm that every single one of your additions was 1) actually reverted, and 2) a useful addition to the article. In other words, to confirm whether your complaint here is valid or not. Translation:
What's your wikipedia user name, so we can stalk down every single change you've made and make absolutely sure that none of them remain, you whiny little punk who dares question the inner circle.
Also, we'd like to leave uncouth suggestions about the marital status of your mother on your user's Talk page.
As much as I love xkcd, I really do think that this article represents the devolution of Slashdot into Digg. I think the Idle section needs to be completely eliminated if this is what kind of crap passes for a story on it.
No matter how much I've felt in the past that various submitters, editors, and sections have been a waste of time, I've never, ever checked a box in my preferences (that I can remember) to tell Slashdot to never show me anything from that source again. I'm very close to doing it right now.
People like him really should be looked at with fucking puzzlement. And that's what I'm doing. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Even if you believe religious beliefs to be delusional, that's no real excuse for a lack of civility. I called your words "hate speech" because that's what they are at face value -- speech that reflects hatred.
And frankly an irrational hatred at that. You claim not to have any major objections to anything he said, but you spew venom and bile in his direction because of certain assumptions you make about the way he thinks. That's not civil or rational discourse and frankly make you the person that needs to be "looked at with fucking puzzlement." It's a strange society we live in when people can justify their vocal contempt for the thoughts and beliefs of others under the rubric of "free speech" -- which is a principle founded on the respect for the thoughts and beliefs of others.
I think you have some anger issues that you need to have looked at if something as innocuous as playing some games with some friends from church or expressing (in the portion you quoted) the confidence to follow one's own beliefs instead of just sheepishly following whatever his pastor tells him creates such a vitriolic reaction in you. Chill out.
Heh, and all this time I thought it was because it was just a game and not real. Silly me.:)
Actually, that brings up an important point which is the center of the debate. Jesus's teachings include the idea that the thought of a sin is as good as the sin itself. Matthew 5:27-30 tells us that if your eye or our hand causes us to go astray that it would be better to remove it than to see our whole body cast into Hell.
So, yeah, it may all be fun and games, but does it still count as desiring the death of another even if that death isn't real? It's a thorny theological question. While the Bible teaches that God forgives all of those who ask sincerely, do Churches want to be encouraging (and condoning) something which may or may not be a sin?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the rules of civil procedure have really tilted things so that you need to sue everybody who could possibly at fault at first and then sort out who's really at fault by the time it comes to trial. Otherwise, you run the risk of the statute of limitations running out in the time it took you to find out that it's really the other guy's fault.
Honestly, its reads better than anything I've seen Michio Kaku write about string theory.
The constitution is the law, it is not a list of suggestions.
So's everything that Congress passes and the President signs off on until someone says otherwise. Just because the Constitution is a higher level of law than that passed by the legislature doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally a construct of man, subject to the foibles and fashions of the ages.
It's not like the Constitution is some holy writ or platonic ideal that rigidly defines the government. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is -- just like any other law.
Before Brown v. the Board of Education, segregation was Constitutional under the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. After Brown, segregation wasn't Constitutional. Note that this has no effect on whether or not segregation was morally right. Constitutional does not always imply "good" or "sensible." It merely implies that it conforms with the Constitution.
The idea of subverting the Constitution is silly at face value. The idea of subverting the America values that were present at its writing though... That's something to be upset about potentially. Besides, after reading Raich v. Gonzalez, I'm not really sure the court could've reasonably ruled any other way without completely destroying the commerce clause. If you don't like Stevens' opinion, at least look at Scalia's concurrence on the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Now we have the first hope in many years of pharmaceutical companies finally coming out with a drug to cure this sad and debilitating mental illness.
While the federal government routinely, and with the blessing of the Supreme court, passes laws that blatantly violate the commerce clause ...
Logical error. The government does not pass laws that violate the commerce clause if the Supreme court says they don't. That's how our government works.
Besides, I think you need to read up on Massachusetts vs. EPA. This suit is probably going to be very similar considering that it was over much the same thing. MS v. EPA was an attempt to force the government to perform its duties to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant in absence of Congressional instruction to or not to do so.
The new lawsuit will be a similar attempt to compel the EPA to perform its mandated duties to grant CA and other states permission to create stricter regulations than the Congressionally mandated minimums. The EPA has dragged its feet for years in signing off on this, claiming that they didn't think they had the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Fortunately, MS v. EPA has cleared that up.
Assuming that the SCOTUS doesn't decide to reverse itself unexpectedly or attempt to wiggle out under jurisdictional issues such as interfering with the powers of the executive or such as the doctrine against getting involved in political decisions, it's probably a slam dunk case.
Then again, I'm not as familiar with the CAA as I'd like to be. The decision might be a discretionary power of the EPA at which point the SCOTUS would simply pass the buck.
When you consider China and India doing nothing to pass those costs on to their users, you don't have a free market. You have the US destroying their competitiveness (and their ability to innovate) while doing little to solve the problem on a global scale (it is called "global warming").
The fewer countries that fail to make an effort to solve the problem, the less people the remaining bad actors will have to point to and say that they don't need to do anything.
What, you didn't think that the Chinese and the Indians don't point to us when people claims that they need to do better?
The problem is people like you who seem to think that our country doesn't need to act until everybody else has acted first. With that kind of attitude, no one ever will.
First, Oregon is in the 9th Circuit, so this decision isn't binding, but Oregon has one of the nation's most powerful free speech clauses in their constitution. Practically any state or local attempt to restrict obscenity gets struck down in the state courts.
Because of this:
1) Localities can't prevent the creation of strip clubs with zoning laws.
2) Can't bar live sex shows.
3) Can't bar someone from being nude on their own lawn.
The first is why Portland has the highest number of strip clubs per capita in the nation. It's a statistic that the local chamber of commerce doesn't brag about.
(Strange that I've seen more in GA than in OR, but maybe I just live in the wrong/right place...)
I swear KDE gets more and more bloated every day. Who really needs a feature like this anyway?
Never underestimate the lack of shame of litigious bastards.
If you are not adult enough to brush off those who are so immature that they get offended you need to go back to high school and toughen up a bit.
Like I f---ing care what you think.
Limiting vocabulary impeads what you are really trying to say.
That's "impedes," d---head.
The story is subtle and slowly revealed -- from the growing realization that no human is watching you to see test areas that are broken down to finally wandering behind the scenes and getting the hints of what happened at the facility and the occasional clues that the computer is lying to you. Then there's the gleefully sociopathic devolution of her behavior towards you as it becomes more and more apparent that she sees you as a rodent to run though a maze an euthanize when it's all over.
The way the madness of the computer slowly becomes apparent and the way that she relentlessly screws with your mind -- from telling you that the Weighted Companion Cube will not stab you and cannot talk, but if it does you should just ignore it to the whole cake obsession to the callous way in which she highlights unnecessarily deadly parts of the test and so on -- are both masterful examples of storytelling.
It's good because it doesn't slap you in the face with what's going on. It's also a great example of good dark comedy writing.
"Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me."
"That thing you broke isn't important to me. Not any more. It's the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit; it makes shoes for orphans. Nice job breaking it, hero."
"Cake, and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test. Thank you for helping us help you help us all!"
"Although the euthanizing process is remarkably painful, 8 out of 10 Aperture Science engineers believe that the companion cube is most likely incapable of feeling much pain."
(Trademark, not copyright.)
Yeah, whoops. Odd, I thought that's what I wrote but I guess I didn't.
If you think this is the only example of Google's antipathy towards "Red State America", you haven't been paying attention....
I think Google perceives that it can afford to pull these sorts of stunts, or e.g. never making a special page for Memorial or Veterans Day, without significant cost.
A) They can. That's my entire point. Boycotts based on "Culture War" BS never make hardly any sort of impact if a company refuses to flinch in the first month or two.
B) They've never made a page for Arbor Day. Does that mean that they hate trees? They've never celebrated Labor Day, either. Does that mean that they hate workers rights? Are you going to read something into the fact that they haven't celebrated President's Day or Columbus Day? Plus, frankly, they'd be more likely to touch off a political firestorm by action than by inaction.
The real problem here is that partisans of all stripes is that they have a grudge against the world. Petty crap like the lack of celebration for two war memorial holidays are seen as validation of paranoid beliefs that the world is filled with large institutions that are out to make your life suck for their own selfish reasons.
Liberal partisans worry about elites trying to destroy the American way of life for their own conscienceless benefit. Conservative partisans worry about the same exact thing for different definitions of destroying the American way of life. In the end, it all comes down to pervasive confirmation bias and an ill temper with the world.
Why should Google pay any attention to people who find offense at everything around them in society and who don't have the attention span nor the willpower to boycott doing business with them -- especially when their complaints are nothing but making a mountain out of a molehill? Sane conservatives will realize that this is a huge to-do about nothing, and the fringe ax-grinders are too small to really care about.
In the time it would take for a court case by MoveOn over trademark infringement to fight its way through courts, this whole mess will be forgotten by all but the most ardent, paranoid grudge-carriers. Even if that weren't true, no company is going to deliberately break the law and expose themselves to liability just to keep a few political loudmouths happy unless said company is run by political loudmouths of the same stripe.
Google only did what's logical, and political partisans have way too puffed up of an opinion of their own importance.
Yes, but what percentage of the US conservative population is so brazenly partisan that they'd be upset at a company for complying with a request to take down an ad from an organization who owns a copyright used in said ad?
And is the ephemeral wrath of partisans who will inevitably find someone else to be more ticked off at in a month or two worth more than a potential lawsuit from MoveOn?
People like to self-inflate their own group's importance, but how much do you think Disney is really suffering from having Gay Days at Disneyworld after over a decade since the initial furor started? For that matter, how's anyone in "the liberal media" faring in spite of near-religious conservative belief in their bias? The current flap is nothing but a tempest in a teacup.
You realize we don't currently execute anyone under 18, and that we don't execute people for reckless or negligent death -- only for deliberate murder, right? People may call it marriage but it won't be, any more than wrecking an AI driven car will be involuntary AI-slaughter. *Cough* Who was it again that wrecked the AI-driven car?
Also, watch better Western stuff. Good cartoons aren't that hard to find.
We do what we must
because we can. That gets my vote for both the most sinister corporate motto ever, as well as the most sinister thing I've heard a sociopathic computer say. As a bonus is sounds really naughty in this context.
Well, it gives a whole new meaning to "Aperture Science," anyway.
You failed, Mr. 11.
Take for example, the recent story on using TCMS to provoke feelings of religious awe tagged with "nosuchthingasgod" or other more offensive tags (which *have* been removed).
What's your wikipedia user name, so we can stalk down every single change you've made and make absolutely sure that none of them remain, you whiny little punk who dares question the inner circle.
Also, we'd like to leave uncouth suggestions about the marital status of your mother on your user's Talk page.
As much as I love xkcd, I really do think that this article represents the devolution of Slashdot into Digg. I think the Idle section needs to be completely eliminated if this is what kind of crap passes for a story on it.
No matter how much I've felt in the past that various submitters, editors, and sections have been a waste of time, I've never, ever checked a box in my preferences (that I can remember) to tell Slashdot to never show me anything from that source again. I'm very close to doing it right now.
People like him really should be looked at with fucking puzzlement. And that's what I'm doing. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Even if you believe religious beliefs to be delusional, that's no real excuse for a lack of civility. I called your words "hate speech" because that's what they are at face value -- speech that reflects hatred.
And frankly an irrational hatred at that. You claim not to have any major objections to anything he said, but you spew venom and bile in his direction because of certain assumptions you make about the way he thinks. That's not civil or rational discourse and frankly make you the person that needs to be "looked at with fucking puzzlement." It's a strange society we live in when people can justify their vocal contempt for the thoughts and beliefs of others under the rubric of "free speech" -- which is a principle founded on the respect for the thoughts and beliefs of others.
I think you have some anger issues that you need to have looked at if something as innocuous as playing some games with some friends from church or expressing (in the portion you quoted) the confidence to follow one's own beliefs instead of just sheepishly following whatever his pastor tells him creates such a vitriolic reaction in you. Chill out.
Hell, I just tossed it up there because I find it conceptually hilarious, not because I think their position is the omega of the argument. :P
Conceded. It *is* pretty funny in spite of its inaccuracies.
Heh, and all this time I thought it was because it was just a game and not real. Silly me. :)
Actually, that brings up an important point which is the center of the debate. Jesus's teachings include the idea that the thought of a sin is as good as the sin itself. Matthew 5:27-30 tells us that if your eye or our hand causes us to go astray that it would be better to remove it than to see our whole body cast into Hell.
So, yeah, it may all be fun and games, but does it still count as desiring the death of another even if that death isn't real? It's a thorny theological question. While the Bible teaches that God forgives all of those who ask sincerely, do Churches want to be encouraging (and condoning) something which may or may not be a sin?
That's the crux of the debate, really.