"The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media."
ok
"All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it."
huh? you just logically countered your initial statement
either its free, or there's control. i love ursula k leguin. in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar. it was a short story of hers, i forget the name, and she played it like a horror movie instead. but leguin isn't seeing the bigger picture here, despite her prodigious and keen powers of insight as shown in her works of fiction. kinda like the mathematics professor who can't balance his checkbook, i guess
"We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control."
i agree 100%. except that already happened many decades ago, and has only gotten worse. existing copyright law no longer serves creators. it serves distributors
such that creators today actually make out better releasing for free, and deriving ancillary revenue streams from their popularity: advertising, endorsements, personalized content, movie deals, etc.
current copyright law will not serve you to make more money than this all-free-on-the-internet model. it will only serve some asshole in a distribution company. a distribution company that serves no function anymore in the world of the internet
the internet has made ip law defunct. and this aids creators: direct interaction with your consumers. the only people that are hurt is the parasitic middlemen in between
intuit is right: the government will claim this or that, and people will just accept it. when an honest mistake by the government, nevermind malicious intent, might wind up overtaxing someone. most people will wind up spending say $2,000 more on their taxes, accepting the government's proposal unseen, rather than reviewing it for mistakes
i don't know about other people, but for me, i'd rather pull my own fingernails out with a wrench than do my taxes. however, the current status quo means that if there is an error, whether honest mistake or malicious, it is usually in favor of the individual, not the government
we should actively rip off h.264, not because we want to use the codec for free, but simply to undermine the status quo that some people, for whatever reason, respect this bullshit called software patents
those who created the codec need to depend upon ancillary streams of revenue, such as hardware prodcuts that depend upon the software ideas. meanwhile, patenting a simple arrangement of bits is contrary to the free exchange of ideas
you should only be able to patent physical objects
everything else is abstract representation: this should never be protected. do we respect the idea that the church of scientology has a copyright on its sacred texts? of course this is bullshit, just as much as it is bullshit that the RIAA attempts to control the flow of bits, or that the chinese autocracy attempts to control the flow of information: the entirety of the phylosophical concept of putting roadblocks on the flow of ideas is a form weakness, failure. it leads to a less rich society
ip law must be actively fought
luckily, this is all too easy, because the internet is the disruptive techology that destroys ip law, whether some people like it or not
at some point, new hardware will built to take advantage of that new algorithm, which is where you can profit from the intellectual effort
say you write an amazing song
at some point, enough people will gather to hear a live performance of that song, which is where you can profit from the intellectual effort of creating that song
but you don't put toll barriers on the flow of bits. for many reasons, not least of which this strategy never works, its always circumvented. its a false conceit to say this can ever work to make money. all you do is cut down on the free exchange of ideas, which impoverishes the whole of society overall. you make more money exchanging ideas freely, and profit from where real world effects emerge from those ideas
a stream of bits takes no effort to produce, and is infinitely reproduceable. of course it can take a lot of intellectual effort to produce a stream of bits. at the point where those stream of bits influence the production or assembly of real world objects, that is where you put the toll barriers in place
is a concrete real world entity. it takes effort and material to produce it
a stream of bits takes no effort to produce, and is infinitely reproduceable
note i am talking about economic effort, not intellectual effort. of course it can take a lot of intellectual effort to produce a stream of bits. at the point where those stream of bits influence the production of a real world object, that is where you put the toll barriers in place
you do not put the toll barriers on the flow of bits. for many reasons, not least of which this strategy never works
In part one of Seligman and Steve Maier's experiment, three groups of dogs were placed in harnesses. Group One dogs were simply put in the harnesses for a period of time and later released. Groups Two and Three consisted of "yoked pairs." A dog in Group 2 would be intentionally subjected to pain by being given electric shocks, which the dog could end by pressing a lever. A Group 3 dog was wired in parallel with a Group 2 dog, receiving shocks of identical intensity and duration, but his lever didn't stop the electric shocks. To a dog in Group 3, it seemed that the shock ended at random, because it was his paired dog in Group 2 that was causing it to stop. For Group 3 dogs, the shock was apparently "inescapable." Group 1 and Group 2 dogs quickly recovered from the experience, but Group 3 dogs learned to be helpless, and exhibited symptoms similar to chronic clinical depression.
you're not advocating for realism or a superior ideology, your simply voicing your own particular psychological failings. when you accept unacceptable things, like a dog being shocked at random, you're just mentally ill. you CAN change things with a ballot box and we HAVE and we WILL continue to do so. its not 1. accept bullshit, or 2. engage in revolution. jesus what a moron
the lowered expectations that you have accepted in your life do not define my reality, nor the reality of anyone else who isn't broken in spirit like you. you're pathetic, and worse, the whole mass of you and people like you only aid those who need to be routed if this country is to achieve further progress by ceasing to act: dead weight
this world will be made a better place, by people whose spirits are not broken. and we'll do it even if we have endure your whining the whole time
it takes time and energy and money to express your ideas in physical form
but it takes no effort or time or expense to share an idea on the internet
the creation of a physical object is a choke point that can be controlled: i can send 10,000 copies of a song from my home computer to anyone in the world, just by leaving a program running on my computer. but i can't publish and mail 10,000 copies of a song without considerable expense. therefore, "piracy" is a concept only a few could engage in in the pre-internet world, and ip law worked, because it was essentially a gentleman's agreement in an exclusive club of a few publishing companies. but in the internet world, piracy is simply the status quo, because its better, cheaper, and easier. you can't apply laws from a previous technological era on the behavior of tens of millions of teenagers around the world. so there's no enforcement possible, so the laws are defunct
in other words, talk all you want about patenting ideas. who cares? certainly not the teenager in slovakia who just violated your patent without knowing or caring anything about all those archaic legal structures that simply don't matter to him. and you have no recourse to make it matter to him. the era, and the laws derived from that era, is simply over, and you have to get used to it. the internet has rendered patents on ideas, and copyrights, as philosphically untenable concepts
the internet is disruptive technology. it will not be tamed by laws that depend upon the assumption that the production and distribution of media has choke points. instead, the laws will simply be ignored. look: the spanish came to the new world and rendered centuries old civilizations supporting the incan and aztec nobility extinct in a matter of weeks. was it fair to the previous era and the nobility who were invested in that structure to be so rudely toppled? who cares about continuity. who cares about fairness. its technological change: there's no stopping it.
talk all you want about ip laws: the only question is one of enforceability, and ip laws are unenforceable in the internet world. you merely have to adapt to the new world. a set of laws depending upon pre-internet assumptions going back to the invention of the printing press, about the economics of the distribution of media, are laws that simply don't matter any more
i'm not advocating for some far-out cybermarxist alternative fringe ideology that might work if everyone just started acting the way i think they should. what i'm doing is simply describing the already extensive reality of how things are already working in the real world, to people like you who seem to live in a pre-internet bubble of denial
is worse than useless, it aids those who attempt to destroy democracy by you self-neutralizing your own voice for positive change
you agree that money should NOT have an influence in participatory democracy, correct?
then this is the goal you work for, no matter how bad it has been, nor for how long it has been bad. what is true is that this supreme court ruling is a major step back, correct? therefore, you fight against it. you don't, like your unfortunate attitude, accept it as an immovable status quo
life is always a struggle. there is always shenanigans you have to fight against. you only lose when you stop struggling and accept the bullshit. then all that happens is the bullshit gets only worse
now you may have accepted this corruption and rot as the status quo, but i haven't, and neither have a lot us. so if you're not going to help us get $ out of politics, shut up and step aside
that some people do not understand this is the real problem
a product is something like a iPhone, or a car, or a pressure release valve: a physical thing. anything composed of bits is not, and can never be considered, as a simple matter of logic and reason, to be a product
your current understanding is simply logically incoherent
not that there aren't laws that support your incoherence. but these laws, and people like you, stand in the way of the free exchange of ideas, and must be defeated for the sake of progress, if not simply for the sake of philosophical integrity
svg extensions cannot be used until they are tied up with the same straightjacket limitations and ip law cruft that makes adobe suck in the first place
his point of view is the enemy of the free exchange of ideas
allow me to throw insults at the control freak asshole, because he is destroying the philosophical underpinnings that makes everything since the age of enlightenment subject to corporate ownership. his way of thinking is very much the enemy
and its what makes people interested in science in the first place
its really not a problem to give voice to that wonder and amazement, what you call mystery and misdirection for some reason, in a popular press account. furthermore, science IS cool for science's sake. the issue is your definition of what science is. for some reason, you demand that science be stripped of everything but the most banal data
i'm getting a little sick of slashdotters complaining about hype in science journalism. its populist, which means it is not 100% technically accurate, it glosses over the issue and leaves important issues out, makes incredibly broad assumptions, injects some fantastic thinking into the whole endeavour... none of which are problems. desireable even
even if the reporter obviously doesn't have the greatest grasp fo the subject matter, the point that the information is out there and available to joe citizen is the most important thing. stop thinking lack of technical rigor and incompleteness is grouns to complain about the intersection of science and journalism. the intersection of science and jorunalism is messy: just fucking accept that already. its important to get the word out there, and if joe citizen is interested, he'll dig down and find out the crux of the matter itself
science journalism is just gloss folks, it is meant for mass consumption. stop fucking nitpicking it like it were an abstract in "nature" for fuck's sake
i have an idea on how to make a new type of internal combustion engine. the production of engines using that idea is therefore subject to legal restrictions
i have an idea on how to encode video. the encoding of video using that idea is merely a manipulation of bits. it is therefore subject to no legal restriction (ideally)
ideas are merely abstract representations. bits are merely abstract representations. it is therefore philosophically unsound to put legal limits on the flow of those bits: they are the same thing as ideas. you are basically putting artificial and productivity limiting controls on the free exchange of ideas. patenting anything which merely governs the flow of bits is directly contradictory to the bedrock concepts in modern liberal democracies of no limitations on the exchange of ideas
of course a lot of people are confused on this issue. so we must work at convincing the likes of you about why their is lack of logical coherence in your words
a bit is not an atom. try to understand why channeling the flow of atoms and channeling the flow of bits is philosophically completely different subject matter and subject to completely different implications . your entire premise is that the two arenas are subject to the same rules. only at the point in which a physical object comes into play does the idea of legal limitations make any sense in terms of a clear benefit to society. not to mention enforcement
this is the bottom line: if you cannot understand why the flow of bits/ ideas is completely unlike the flow of stuff, you fail, hard, at saying anything logically coherent on the subject matter
you need to work through the logical contradictions in your beliefs
political parties are irrelevant if they are dwarfed in spending and organization by corporations
hate the current political parties all you want, but at least they are organized along ideological grounds, rather than crass profit-driven interest
its also the death of charismatic politicians. a politician's personality will now be sublimated to his corporate master's pr interests. and they WILL be working for corporate masters, rather than the general public. is there any doubt in your mind about that?
man this sucks so bad. hopefully they can legislate against this fucking retarded supreme court decision
thank you, constitutional fundamentalists. you know, the constitution is a living document, not the goddamn bible. it really does change over time. in fact, it is an unhealthy society that does not alter the constitution's original precepts. the constitution is not something you refer to in the past as some unchangeable entity. it must be questioned, and it must be refined over time: it governs a LIVING society
the founding fathers themselves stood against such unthinking unchanging fundamentalism. the founding fathers would tweak their documents if they were alive today. the founding fathers got so much right, but there is plenty they got wrong and there is plenty the future delivered that they did not address. meanwhile, this low iq anti-judicial activist trend: you don't consider this decision to be judicial activism? judicial activism in the name of NOT changing the constitution is the real enemy, and also reveals the one-sided moronic propaganda against "judicial activism" since ALL interpretation of the constitution is "activism." and of course the fucking constitution is interpreted: the constitution did not directly address campaign spending by corporations. the constitution is not a religious document, you constitutional fundamentalist assholes. i'm looking at you scalia
change is good. not changing is the real enemy of a healthy liberal democracy
man it will take a long time to purge our society of the rot the gw bush presidency infected it with
Slashdot Mirror
"The free and open dissemination of information and of literature, as it exists in our Public Libraries, can and should exist in the electronic media."
ok
"All authors hope for that. But we cannot have free and open dissemination of information and literature unless the use of written material continues to be controlled by those who write it or own legitimate right in it."
huh? you just logically countered your initial statement
either its free, or there's control. i love ursula k leguin. in fact, i noticed cameron ripped her off with the "every plant is a node in a giant neural network" idea in avatar. it was a short story of hers, i forget the name, and she played it like a horror movie instead. but leguin isn't seeing the bigger picture here, despite her prodigious and keen powers of insight as shown in her works of fiction. kinda like the mathematics professor who can't balance his checkbook, i guess
"We urge our government and our courts to allow no corporation to circumvent copyright law or dictate the terms of that control."
i agree 100%. except that already happened many decades ago, and has only gotten worse. existing copyright law no longer serves creators. it serves distributors
such that creators today actually make out better releasing for free, and deriving ancillary revenue streams from their popularity: advertising, endorsements, personalized content, movie deals, etc.
current copyright law will not serve you to make more money than this all-free-on-the-internet model. it will only serve some asshole in a distribution company. a distribution company that serves no function anymore in the world of the internet
the internet has made ip law defunct. and this aids creators: direct interaction with your consumers. the only people that are hurt is the parasitic middlemen in between
and all i'm saying is use whatever the hell format you like: the creator can benefit in ancillary ways
i could care less about "the man"
i care about a set of laws that in the internet age has no more integrity or enforceability
you'r hyperventilating and getting caught up in derivative conflicts
follow a broken, outdated, immoral law, and you will do worse off than those who disobey the broken scheme called ip law, yes, that is exactly true
ip law punishes those who abide by so-called (easily circumvented) restrictions
it rewards all of us, including creators, who ignore ip law
ip law is simply unenforceable in the age of the internet, so stop trying to follow it anyways. you only get punished when you obey ip law
intuit is right: the government will claim this or that, and people will just accept it. when an honest mistake by the government, nevermind malicious intent, might wind up overtaxing someone. most people will wind up spending say $2,000 more on their taxes, accepting the government's proposal unseen, rather than reviewing it for mistakes
i don't know about other people, but for me, i'd rather pull my own fingernails out with a wrench than do my taxes. however, the current status quo means that if there is an error, whether honest mistake or malicious, it is usually in favor of the individual, not the government
and contrary to the concepts of a free market
we should actively rip off h.264, not because we want to use the codec for free, but simply to undermine the status quo that some people, for whatever reason, respect this bullshit called software patents
those who created the codec need to depend upon ancillary streams of revenue, such as hardware prodcuts that depend upon the software ideas. meanwhile, patenting a simple arrangement of bits is contrary to the free exchange of ideas
you should only be able to patent physical objects
everything else is abstract representation: this should never be protected. do we respect the idea that the church of scientology has a copyright on its sacred texts? of course this is bullshit, just as much as it is bullshit that the RIAA attempts to control the flow of bits, or that the chinese autocracy attempts to control the flow of information: the entirety of the phylosophical concept of putting roadblocks on the flow of ideas is a form weakness, failure. it leads to a less rich society
ip law must be actively fought
luckily, this is all too easy, because the internet is the disruptive techology that destroys ip law, whether some people like it or not
remember dragon naturally speaking? remember the apple newton? bill gates was hyping tablets in 2001
tablets are just not going to happen, like speech recognition is not going to happen
both are eternally just beyond the horizon and somehow superior... except they are not
sound recognition seems like it superior to keyboards, and yet its not
likewise, scribbling on a pad seems superior to keyboards, and yet its not
here, don't take my word for it, take bill gates circa 2001 hyping how we're going to be using tablets by now:
http://gizmodo.com/5324866/vintage-bill-gates-predicts-tablets-to-be-the-most-popular-form-of-pc-sold-in-america
for a powerful client, but i need, you, random slashdork, to help me out here
no, i'm not a salesman
for video compression
at some point, new hardware will built to take advantage of that new algorithm, which is where you can profit from the intellectual effort
say you write an amazing song
at some point, enough people will gather to hear a live performance of that song, which is where you can profit from the intellectual effort of creating that song
but you don't put toll barriers on the flow of bits. for many reasons, not least of which this strategy never works, its always circumvented. its a false conceit to say this can ever work to make money. all you do is cut down on the free exchange of ideas, which impoverishes the whole of society overall. you make more money exchanging ideas freely, and profit from where real world effects emerge from those ideas
a stream of bits takes no effort to produce, and is infinitely reproduceable. of course it can take a lot of intellectual effort to produce a stream of bits. at the point where those stream of bits influence the production or assembly of real world objects, that is where you put the toll barriers in place
is a concrete real world entity. it takes effort and material to produce it
a stream of bits takes no effort to produce, and is infinitely reproduceable
note i am talking about economic effort, not intellectual effort. of course it can take a lot of intellectual effort to produce a stream of bits. at the point where those stream of bits influence the production of a real world object, that is where you put the toll barriers in place
you do not put the toll barriers on the flow of bits. for many reasons, not least of which this strategy never works
susan and mary
but then a GIS unwittingly exposed me to rule 34
(shudder)
working outside it is far worse than all the corporate meddling you can imagine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
you're not advocating for realism or a superior ideology, your simply voicing your own particular psychological failings. when you accept unacceptable things, like a dog being shocked at random, you're just mentally ill. you CAN change things with a ballot box and we HAVE and we WILL continue to do so. its not 1. accept bullshit, or 2. engage in revolution. jesus what a moron
the lowered expectations that you have accepted in your life do not define my reality, nor the reality of anyone else who isn't broken in spirit like you. you're pathetic, and worse, the whole mass of you and people like you only aid those who need to be routed if this country is to achieve further progress by ceasing to act: dead weight
this world will be made a better place, by people whose spirits are not broken. and we'll do it even if we have endure your whining the whole time
help or shut the fuck up
it is LITERALLY creepy ;-)
so the nexus six can't be far off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_Six
and now, with this article, we have the invention of the voight-kampff machine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voight-Kampff_machine
blade runner future, here we come!
when do we get japanese geisha noodle commercials with japanese classical music projected onto blimps?
it takes time and energy and money to express your ideas in physical form
but it takes no effort or time or expense to share an idea on the internet
the creation of a physical object is a choke point that can be controlled: i can send 10,000 copies of a song from my home computer to anyone in the world, just by leaving a program running on my computer. but i can't publish and mail 10,000 copies of a song without considerable expense. therefore, "piracy" is a concept only a few could engage in in the pre-internet world, and ip law worked, because it was essentially a gentleman's agreement in an exclusive club of a few publishing companies. but in the internet world, piracy is simply the status quo, because its better, cheaper, and easier. you can't apply laws from a previous technological era on the behavior of tens of millions of teenagers around the world. so there's no enforcement possible, so the laws are defunct
in other words, talk all you want about patenting ideas. who cares? certainly not the teenager in slovakia who just violated your patent without knowing or caring anything about all those archaic legal structures that simply don't matter to him. and you have no recourse to make it matter to him. the era, and the laws derived from that era, is simply over, and you have to get used to it. the internet has rendered patents on ideas, and copyrights, as philosphically untenable concepts
the internet is disruptive technology. it will not be tamed by laws that depend upon the assumption that the production and distribution of media has choke points. instead, the laws will simply be ignored. look: the spanish came to the new world and rendered centuries old civilizations supporting the incan and aztec nobility extinct in a matter of weeks. was it fair to the previous era and the nobility who were invested in that structure to be so rudely toppled? who cares about continuity. who cares about fairness. its technological change: there's no stopping it.
talk all you want about ip laws: the only question is one of enforceability, and ip laws are unenforceable in the internet world. you merely have to adapt to the new world. a set of laws depending upon pre-internet assumptions going back to the invention of the printing press, about the economics of the distribution of media, are laws that simply don't matter any more
i'm not advocating for some far-out cybermarxist alternative fringe ideology that might work if everyone just started acting the way i think they should. what i'm doing is simply describing the already extensive reality of how things are already working in the real world, to people like you who seem to live in a pre-internet bubble of denial
it's not like facebook has just given the presidency or the executive some sort of massive increase in power
the presidency has always wielded a certain amount of populist appeal, and it has always been tweaked by presidents since the dawn of this country
social media does not change this game, nor adjust any sort of power dynamics in washington dc
from the evolution of animals and plants to the evolution of laws and ideologies and technologies governing modern societies, is:
life is an arms race
the proper conclusion is that japanese transportation engineers are no smarter than slime molds
is worse than useless, it aids those who attempt to destroy democracy by you self-neutralizing your own voice for positive change
you agree that money should NOT have an influence in participatory democracy, correct?
then this is the goal you work for, no matter how bad it has been, nor for how long it has been bad. what is true is that this supreme court ruling is a major step back, correct? therefore, you fight against it. you don't, like your unfortunate attitude, accept it as an immovable status quo
life is always a struggle. there is always shenanigans you have to fight against. you only lose when you stop struggling and accept the bullshit. then all that happens is the bullshit gets only worse
now you may have accepted this corruption and rot as the status quo, but i haven't, and neither have a lot us. so if you're not going to help us get $ out of politics, shut up and step aside
is simply an idea, not a product
that some people do not understand this is the real problem
a product is something like a iPhone, or a car, or a pressure release valve: a physical thing. anything composed of bits is not, and can never be considered, as a simple matter of logic and reason, to be a product
your current understanding is simply logically incoherent
not that there aren't laws that support your incoherence. but these laws, and people like you, stand in the way of the free exchange of ideas, and must be defeated for the sake of progress, if not simply for the sake of philosophical integrity
svg extensions cannot be used until they are tied up with the same straightjacket limitations and ip law cruft that makes adobe suck in the first place
his point of view is the enemy of the free exchange of ideas
allow me to throw insults at the control freak asshole, because he is destroying the philosophical underpinnings that makes everything since the age of enlightenment subject to corporate ownership. his way of thinking is very much the enemy
and its what makes people interested in science in the first place
its really not a problem to give voice to that wonder and amazement, what you call mystery and misdirection for some reason, in a popular press account. furthermore, science IS cool for science's sake. the issue is your definition of what science is. for some reason, you demand that science be stripped of everything but the most banal data
i'm getting a little sick of slashdotters complaining about hype in science journalism. its populist, which means it is not 100% technically accurate, it glosses over the issue and leaves important issues out, makes incredibly broad assumptions, injects some fantastic thinking into the whole endeavour... none of which are problems. desireable even
even if the reporter obviously doesn't have the greatest grasp fo the subject matter, the point that the information is out there and available to joe citizen is the most important thing. stop thinking lack of technical rigor and incompleteness is grouns to complain about the intersection of science and journalism. the intersection of science and jorunalism is messy: just fucking accept that already. its important to get the word out there, and if joe citizen is interested, he'll dig down and find out the crux of the matter itself
science journalism is just gloss folks, it is meant for mass consumption. stop fucking nitpicking it like it were an abstract in "nature" for fuck's sake
i have an idea on how to make a new type of internal combustion engine. the production of engines using that idea is therefore subject to legal restrictions
i have an idea on how to encode video. the encoding of video using that idea is merely a manipulation of bits. it is therefore subject to no legal restriction (ideally)
ideas are merely abstract representations. bits are merely abstract representations. it is therefore philosophically unsound to put legal limits on the flow of those bits: they are the same thing as ideas. you are basically putting artificial and productivity limiting controls on the free exchange of ideas. patenting anything which merely governs the flow of bits is directly contradictory to the bedrock concepts in modern liberal democracies of no limitations on the exchange of ideas
of course a lot of people are confused on this issue. so we must work at convincing the likes of you about why their is lack of logical coherence in your words
a bit is not an atom. try to understand why channeling the flow of atoms and channeling the flow of bits is philosophically completely different subject matter and subject to completely different implications . your entire premise is that the two arenas are subject to the same rules. only at the point in which a physical object comes into play does the idea of legal limitations make any sense in terms of a clear benefit to society. not to mention enforcement
this is the bottom line: if you cannot understand why the flow of bits/ ideas is completely unlike the flow of stuff, you fail, hard, at saying anything logically coherent on the subject matter
you need to work through the logical contradictions in your beliefs
political parties are irrelevant if they are dwarfed in spending and organization by corporations
hate the current political parties all you want, but at least they are organized along ideological grounds, rather than crass profit-driven interest
its also the death of charismatic politicians. a politician's personality will now be sublimated to his corporate master's pr interests. and they WILL be working for corporate masters, rather than the general public. is there any doubt in your mind about that?
man this sucks so bad. hopefully they can legislate against this fucking retarded supreme court decision
thank you, constitutional fundamentalists. you know, the constitution is a living document, not the goddamn bible. it really does change over time. in fact, it is an unhealthy society that does not alter the constitution's original precepts. the constitution is not something you refer to in the past as some unchangeable entity. it must be questioned, and it must be refined over time: it governs a LIVING society
the founding fathers themselves stood against such unthinking unchanging fundamentalism. the founding fathers would tweak their documents if they were alive today. the founding fathers got so much right, but there is plenty they got wrong and there is plenty the future delivered that they did not address. meanwhile, this low iq anti-judicial activist trend: you don't consider this decision to be judicial activism? judicial activism in the name of NOT changing the constitution is the real enemy, and also reveals the one-sided moronic propaganda against "judicial activism" since ALL interpretation of the constitution is "activism." and of course the fucking constitution is interpreted: the constitution did not directly address campaign spending by corporations. the constitution is not a religious document, you constitutional fundamentalist assholes. i'm looking at you scalia
change is good. not changing is the real enemy of a healthy liberal democracy
man it will take a long time to purge our society of the rot the gw bush presidency infected it with
chuck, and norris
ROUNDHOUSE