Do not fall into the error of the artisan who boasts of twenty years
experience in his craft while in fact he has had only one year of
experience-- twenty times.
-- Otake, Shibumi, Trevanian
I hate specifying in pixels. They are not the same on different display devices.
Using cm isn't a perfect solution, either. I had told X that my second head (my TV) was 32". Well-written apps went ahead and scaled properly to render 12 point text to be 12 points high, which I could not hope to read from my couch. I ended up telling X that I have a 15.5 cm wide display, which is the size of a monitor of the same viewing arc at arm's length.
Sure, it's only a problem in unusual cases-- such as the display in the article, HMDs, etc. But maybe specifying sizes in radians would be more appropriate, if you want consistency.
I've tried a lot of things to deal with sleep problems. One of the most effective has been QiGong and T'ai Chi. (The other most effective was seeing a doctor; I had an undiagnosed disorder. But I've harped on that elsewhere in this thread.)
T'ai Chi and Qi Gong have many different benefits regarding sleep. Two aspects in particulr really helped me. First, the meditative aspect helps settle your mind and body in preparation for sleep. Second, they really promote self-awareness in many ways. This can help you realize what's keeping you from sleeping.
If you're not tired, you probably don't need the sleep.
This is a very widespread misconception. I've read about studies that show people who say they're not tired but testing (most notably using performance tests or a protocol called MSLT) indicates they are. Performance testing time and again indicates that sleep deprivation == impaired performance, even if the subjects don't recognize the degree.
I don't have precise references, but one such study that comes to mind was performed by Tom Roth of the Henry Ford Hospital in 1988. Another was performed by Dr. William Dement, a few years before 1999 (not sure just when). Both are mentioned in a book I've recommended in several threads here, The Promise of Sleep.
Re:It Could be serious...
on
Sleeping Problems?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I can't tell you about the OP's condition, but I can give you a few examples.
Fatal familial insomnia is a rare, inherited degenerative brain disorder. It's pretty much what it sounds like: the victim gradually loses the ability to sleep, and dies within 7 to 36 months.
Nocturnal cardiac ischemia is one cause of insomnia: chest pains keep the victim awake at night. It is caused by atherosclerotic heart disease. (You can Google this stuff.)
Any number of obstructive pulmonary diseases, such as emphysema, can cause severe insomnia.
Now, I'm going to talk about a more common disease that can be fatal, but is frequently misunderstood: obstructive sleep apnea. In this disease, the soft tissues of the throat collapse during the night. The lungs work harder and harder to pull in air, and this only draws the throat tighter, like sucking a milkshake through a straw. The victim eventually wakes up, the throat muscles tighten, and with a gasp, the lungs fill. The victim then goes back to sleep.
All this time, the victim's blood oxygen level is plummeting. The victim is suffocating, turning blue, and the heart is losing its ability to function. Too long without oxygen, and the heart can stop altogether, possibly unable to restart. What's more, when the heart does get oxygen, it suddenly is working like mad to get it to the rest of the body: transient BPs of 300/* have been measured at this time (normal BPs are around 115/*). An estimated 38,000 strokes and heart attacks per year are due to apnea.
This happens hundreds of times per night. And, amazingly, the victim doesn't know it; the barely-awake mind doesn't have its long-term memory wired up right yet.
At best, the victim knows that he snores, and that he's tired during the day. Besides the direct fatalities during the night, tired people can be killed in a number of ways, such as missing a light if they doze off at the wheel, or making a bad judgement and crashing a ship (Exxon Valdez). Apnea is theorized to be an indirect cause of a number of high-risk conditions, particularly high blood pressure.
I'm going on about obstructive sleep apnea because it's amazingly common and dangerous, yet amazingly easy to diagnose and treat. What's more, apnea (like most sleep disorders) is barely-- if at all-- understood by most physicians: they just don't have training to deal with it. So people get misdiagnosed for years, maybe decades.
Personally, I'd recommend that anybody who feels tired and snores should learn about apnea, and see a doctor (possibly not in that order). I learned about it by reading a book I heard about on/.: The Promise of Sleep, by Dr. William Dement, which I strongly recommend to anybody who wants to know about sleep.
Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor, and have no medical background or training.
Re:Alter your diet and/or take vitamins/supplement
on
Sleeping Problems?
·
· Score: 1
That's odd, because I'm left with the impression that 120/80 is actually an optimal BP.
It used to be, but they changed the standard.
In November 1997, the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC) issued the report that classified 120/80 and below as "optimal", which is a standard that many are familiar with.
However, after further research, the JNC concluded that the risks are greater than previously realized. On May 21, 2003, they published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that set new standards. This article is commonly called JNC7.
The new standards classify anything below 120/80 as normal, but at or above that as prehypertension. Hypertension is still at 140/90 and above.
Personally, I generally would tend to question a standard which classifies 22% of the American adult population as diseased. Still, given how many deaths are attributable to heart disease (29% in 2001, according to the CDC), I'll go with the more conservative figures.
Re:Alter your diet and/or take vitamins/supplement
on
Sleeping Problems?
·
· Score: 1
For my wife, who is for some reason nocturnal by default, melatonin has been *a* solution.
I'm glad that it's helping your wife, but I would like to add a caution about melatonin.
Given what the archetypical/.er's diet, stressful job, caffiene consumption, etc, I wouldn't be surprised if many have prehypertension (defined as BP at or over 120/80). Since melatonin can constrict blood vessels, there's some concern that it may pose a danger for those
Now, in the Jan. 20, 2004, rapid-access issue of Hypertension, there was a report that suggested that melatonin may be good for your blood pressure. The media picked up on that study, and so of course it's overpublicised. It's important to realize that this was a small test, and more research is required before conclusions can be drawn.
Personally, I suspect that the melatonin helped the subjects sleep, and better sleep helped with the blood pressure. There are unquestioned links between sleep apnea and high blood pressure, but whether sleep problems (in general or apnea in particular) is a contributory factor to high blood pressure is still undetermined. So my idea is just a hypothesis.
Anyway, back to the point: I would recommend that anybody with cardiovascular issues ask their physician before taking melatonin.
Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor, and I have absolutely no medical training. I do have prehypertension (common) and sleep apnea (less common).
I just got back from an overnight sleep test at the Stanford Sleep Clinic.
There's a lot of misunderstandings about sleep. Many "pop" books regarding sleep, and a number of physicians, have plenty of misconceptions about sleep and sleep problems.
I highly recommend the book The Promise of Sleep. It's written by Dr. Dement, one of the foremost sleep researchers. It helped me understand healthy sleep and sleep disorders, and lead to my discovery that I have a potentially life-threatening sleep disorder (which has just been diagnosed, and I'm about to begin treatment).
Sleep problems can lead to lots of problems in your physical and mental well-being. In my case, over the last several months, my productivity at work is shot. I can't concentrate on my code. I also don't have the energy to go out and have fun with my friends like I used to.
It's also difficult to recognize the results of sleep problems as such. You might not feel tired, even when your body is desperately needing more restful sleep-- but it still interferes with your daytime activities. You might think that they're related to other problems. I thought that my problems were the result of problems with diet, exercise, etc. In my case, these were contributing factors, but the sleep thing seems to be the biggest cause.
I highly recommend you-- and anybody else who has the slightest inkling that they may not be sleeping as well as they could-- read Dr. Dement's book.
You assume that the OP was using the 0 dB reference point of 0.0002ubar. Remember that dB are relative: he was actually saying 40 dB, relative to the ambient noise in the restaurant.
I would propose as the cardinal sin of the computer industry: protecting your own higher-priced or older products from your own newer, lower-priced products. This was a primary contributor to DEC's demise.
How would you compare this to when they dropped the PDP-10 for the VAX?
But why is a type of speech restricted simply because it isn't
used to speak out against 'the Man'?
It's not. If we're referring to obscenity, it's restricted because
it is believed to have "a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt
its readers by inciting lascivious thoughts or arousing lustful
desires" (Commonwealth v. Isenstadt (1945), 318 Mass. 543 [62 N.E.2d
840, 844], or
People v. Wepplo, 78 Cal.App.2d Supp. 959,
free reg req'd).
There are other classes of speech that typified by GTA, for
instance which may also have a substantial tendency to corrupt.
Let's identify one such class as 'depictions of violence' for the
moment. Now, depictions of violence may have a substantial tendency
to corrupt, but because they are often used as vehicles of social or
political commentary, are protected under the First Amendment. That's
what this case
(Video
Software Dealers Assoc. v. Maleng, PDF) is about.
Obscenity, by legal definition, is "utterly without redeeming
social importance"
(Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)).
The full context of that quote is as follows:
All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance -
unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the
prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the
guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited
area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of
the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without
redeeming social importance.
Because the obscenity has "a substantial tendency to deprave or
corrupt", it is considered to be bad for society. Now, were obscenity
used for social change, then it would be protected under the First
Amendment. But it's not, so it isn't. From
Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942):
"....There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of
speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought
to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and
obscene.... It has been well observed that such utterances are no
essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight
social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived
from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and
morality...."
Now, let's get back to VSDA v Maleng, since that's what this
article is about. In the case of depictions of violence, it also may
be considered to be bad for society. However, these are frequently
works which contain vehicles for social opinion. That means that they
merit First Amendment protection. The judge in this case said:
Sexually-explicit materials were originally excluded from the
protections of the First Amendment because the prevention and
punishment of lewd speech has very little, if any, impact on the free
expression of ideas and government regulation of the sexually obscene
has never been though to raise constitutional problems. The same
cannot be said for depictions of violence: such depictions have been
used in literature, art, and the media to convey important messages
throughout our history, and there is no indication that such
expressions have ever been excluded from the protections of the First
Amendment or subject to government regulation.
Contrary to apparent popular opinion, the government doesn't feel
that violence is "less profane" than sexual content (which is
distinct from obscenity,
Roth v. US).
Why exactly is sex deemed to be worse than violence? Why are violent portrayals protected but sexual portrayals not?
Because the use of violence in literature has often been used to speak out against the government; less so for sex.
Personally, I find a naked woman less profane than a naked blade. But the free-speech protection offered here isn't about what is and isn't profane; it's about what is used to speak out against The Man. That needs to be protected.
From the decision:
Undaunted by the clear pronouncements of the Supreme Court regarding the limited scope of materials that are subject to regulation as obscene, defendants argue that the Court should expand the definition of obscenity to include graphic portrayals of violence. No court has accepted such an argument, probably because existing case law does not support it. In addition to the fact that the Supreme Court has expressly limited "obscenity" to include only sexually-explicit materials, the historical justifications for the obscenity exception simply do not apply to depictions of violence. Sexually-explicit materials were originally excluded from the protections of the First Amendment because the prevention and punishment of lewd speech has very little, if any, impact on the free expression of ideas and government regulation of the sexually obscene has never been though to raise constitutional problems. The same cannot be said for depictions of violence: such depictions have been used in literature, art, and the media to convey important messages throughout our history, and there is no indication that such expressions have ever been excluded from the protections of the First Amendment or subject to government regulation.[citations omitted]
I don't entirely agree with the following article, but I do feel it's relevant to this discussion.
Understanding Taxes - An Excellent Analogy January 13, 2003
by Unknown
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on - it does make you think!!
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, (pointing to the tenth) got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too,........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?" The wealthy get all the breaks!". Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!
Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest?
Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight-forward logic!
Since when is 7 billion in cash "not much left over"? Oh, since we're comparing it to their 56B before this maneuver, okay.
Well, they'd have the assets of the companies at that point. Sony has 10.34B in cash, but I don't know about Nintendo. Besides, they don't have to buy the entire outstanding stock supply, just a controlling interest.
I'm not saying it's likely. The console market just isn't important enough to them. But if they realized that-- for example-- eight of the Supreme Court justices couldn't get enough Zelda, and MS figured out effective forms of subliminal advertising, then it's a possible tack.
I mean, if they're blind, they probably aren't going to enjoy movies much, are they?
A number of movies, I understand, have narration tracks that are broadcast by the theater. The viewer wears a special set of headphones to hear narration of the action.
I suppose that since PC isn't explicitly in the text, it could be interpreted that way, but my assumption would be that the 4th ammendment still applies. Do other statutes regarding the issuance of warrants explicitly address PC?
You mean like the physical search warrant part of the FISA, which is two subchapterss back in the Code? Yes, it does explicitly require probable cause. In fact, it has a whole section about the necessary judicial review, as opposed to the mere subordinate clause that the PATRIOT act uses.
I haven't heard this. In fact, the only thing I've heard about this process have been statements from Ashcroft himself, where he rebuts criticisms that the PATRIOT Act allows DoJ to run around without any oversight.
First, I'll point out to whoever's following the text that the section in question is part of Sec 215 of the Act. The "Sec 501" heading is part of some replacement text.
applied by a high ranking FBI official,
Asst SiC isn't particularly high-ranking.
and be approved by a judge.
They don't need probable cause. That's the big deal; they just can say "We need it for a terrorism investigation" and the judge approves it.
Also, Section 502 calls for semi-annual congressional reviews.
Which, IIRC, have met with only stonewalling by the AG.
Y'know, come to think, you may be able to rig up an old baseball auto-pitcher (the kind with the two tires). Make it one tire, vertically mounted, with a tiny gap above a steel plate.
Disclaimer: This is just a hypothetical device. I assume no responsibility for safety or liability if you actually build it.
Slashdot Mirror
Do not fall into the error of the artisan who boasts of twenty years experience in his craft while in fact he has had only one year of experience-- twenty times.
-- Otake, Shibumi, Trevanian
Last I heard, he started a rumor that Eddie Izzard would be the next Doctor.
I hate specifying in pixels. They are not the same on different display devices.
Using cm isn't a perfect solution, either. I had told X that my second head (my TV) was 32". Well-written apps went ahead and scaled properly to render 12 point text to be 12 points high, which I could not hope to read from my couch. I ended up telling X that I have a 15.5 cm wide display, which is the size of a monitor of the same viewing arc at arm's length.
Sure, it's only a problem in unusual cases-- such as the display in the article, HMDs, etc. But maybe specifying sizes in radians would be more appropriate, if you want consistency.
I've tried a lot of things to deal with sleep problems. One of the most effective has been QiGong and T'ai Chi. (The other most effective was seeing a doctor; I had an undiagnosed disorder. But I've harped on that elsewhere in this thread.)
T'ai Chi and Qi Gong have many different benefits regarding sleep. Two aspects in particulr really helped me. First, the meditative aspect helps settle your mind and body in preparation for sleep. Second, they really promote self-awareness in many ways. This can help you realize what's keeping you from sleeping.
at least until MyDoom becomes less prevalent.
How long ago was that, and how's it been since? I was measured for a CPAP mask last night, but keep wondering if surgery would be a good way to go.
If you're not tired, you probably don't need the sleep.
This is a very widespread misconception. I've read about studies that show people who say they're not tired but testing (most notably using performance tests or a protocol called MSLT) indicates they are. Performance testing time and again indicates that sleep deprivation == impaired performance, even if the subjects don't recognize the degree.
I don't have precise references, but one such study that comes to mind was performed by Tom Roth of the Henry Ford Hospital in 1988. Another was performed by Dr. William Dement, a few years before 1999 (not sure just when). Both are mentioned in a book I've recommended in several threads here, The Promise of Sleep .
I can't tell you about the OP's condition, but I can give you a few examples.
Fatal familial insomnia is a rare, inherited degenerative brain disorder. It's pretty much what it sounds like: the victim gradually loses the ability to sleep, and dies within 7 to 36 months.
Nocturnal cardiac ischemia is one cause of insomnia: chest pains keep the victim awake at night. It is caused by atherosclerotic heart disease. (You can Google this stuff.)
Any number of obstructive pulmonary diseases, such as emphysema, can cause severe insomnia.
Now, I'm going to talk about a more common disease that can be fatal, but is frequently misunderstood: obstructive sleep apnea. In this disease, the soft tissues of the throat collapse during the night. The lungs work harder and harder to pull in air, and this only draws the throat tighter, like sucking a milkshake through a straw. The victim eventually wakes up, the throat muscles tighten, and with a gasp, the lungs fill. The victim then goes back to sleep.
All this time, the victim's blood oxygen level is plummeting. The victim is suffocating, turning blue, and the heart is losing its ability to function. Too long without oxygen, and the heart can stop altogether, possibly unable to restart. What's more, when the heart does get oxygen, it suddenly is working like mad to get it to the rest of the body: transient BPs of 300/* have been measured at this time (normal BPs are around 115/*). An estimated 38,000 strokes and heart attacks per year are due to apnea.
This happens hundreds of times per night. And, amazingly, the victim doesn't know it; the barely-awake mind doesn't have its long-term memory wired up right yet.
At best, the victim knows that he snores, and that he's tired during the day. Besides the direct fatalities during the night, tired people can be killed in a number of ways, such as missing a light if they doze off at the wheel, or making a bad judgement and crashing a ship (Exxon Valdez). Apnea is theorized to be an indirect cause of a number of high-risk conditions, particularly high blood pressure.
I'm going on about obstructive sleep apnea because it's amazingly common and dangerous, yet amazingly easy to diagnose and treat. What's more, apnea (like most sleep disorders) is barely-- if at all-- understood by most physicians: they just don't have training to deal with it. So people get misdiagnosed for years, maybe decades.
Personally, I'd recommend that anybody who feels tired and snores should learn about apnea, and see a doctor (possibly not in that order). I learned about it by reading a book I heard about on /.: The Promise of Sleep , by Dr. William Dement, which I strongly recommend to anybody who wants to know about sleep.
Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor, and have no medical background or training.
That's odd, because I'm left with the impression that 120/80 is actually an optimal BP.
It used to be, but they changed the standard.
In November 1997, the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC) issued the report that classified 120/80 and below as "optimal", which is a standard that many are familiar with.
However, after further research, the JNC concluded that the risks are greater than previously realized. On May 21, 2003, they published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that set new standards. This article is commonly called JNC7.
The new standards classify anything below 120/80 as normal, but at or above that as prehypertension. Hypertension is still at 140/90 and above.
References:
Personally, I generally would tend to question a standard which classifies 22% of the American adult population as diseased. Still, given how many deaths are attributable to heart disease (29% in 2001, according to the CDC), I'll go with the more conservative figures.
For my wife, who is for some reason nocturnal by default, melatonin has been *a* solution.
I'm glad that it's helping your wife, but I would like to add a caution about melatonin.
Given what the archetypical /.er's diet, stressful job, caffiene consumption, etc, I wouldn't be surprised if many have prehypertension (defined as BP at or over 120/80). Since melatonin can constrict blood vessels, there's some concern that it may pose a danger for those
Now, in the Jan. 20, 2004, rapid-access issue of Hypertension, there was a report that suggested that melatonin may be good for your blood pressure. The media picked up on that study, and so of course it's overpublicised. It's important to realize that this was a small test, and more research is required before conclusions can be drawn.
Personally, I suspect that the melatonin helped the subjects sleep, and better sleep helped with the blood pressure. There are unquestioned links between sleep apnea and high blood pressure, but whether sleep problems (in general or apnea in particular) is a contributory factor to high blood pressure is still undetermined. So my idea is just a hypothesis.
Anyway, back to the point: I would recommend that anybody with cardiovascular issues ask their physician before taking melatonin.
Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor, and I have absolutely no medical training. I do have prehypertension (common) and sleep apnea (less common).
I just got back from an overnight sleep test at the Stanford Sleep Clinic.
There's a lot of misunderstandings about sleep. Many "pop" books regarding sleep, and a number of physicians, have plenty of misconceptions about sleep and sleep problems.
I highly recommend the book The Promise of Sleep . It's written by Dr. Dement, one of the foremost sleep researchers. It helped me understand healthy sleep and sleep disorders, and lead to my discovery that I have a potentially life-threatening sleep disorder (which has just been diagnosed, and I'm about to begin treatment).
Sleep problems can lead to lots of problems in your physical and mental well-being. In my case, over the last several months, my productivity at work is shot. I can't concentrate on my code. I also don't have the energy to go out and have fun with my friends like I used to.
It's also difficult to recognize the results of sleep problems as such. You might not feel tired, even when your body is desperately needing more restful sleep-- but it still interferes with your daytime activities. You might think that they're related to other problems. I thought that my problems were the result of problems with diet, exercise, etc. In my case, these were contributing factors, but the sleep thing seems to be the biggest cause.
I highly recommend you-- and anybody else who has the slightest inkling that they may not be sleeping as well as they could-- read Dr. Dement's book.
How on Earth did it get my pager's email address?
You assume that the OP was using the 0 dB reference point of 0.0002ubar. Remember that dB are relative: he was actually saying 40 dB, relative to the ambient noise in the restaurant.
I would propose as the cardinal sin of the computer industry: protecting your own higher-priced or older products from your own newer, lower-priced products. This was a primary contributor to DEC's demise.
How would you compare this to when they dropped the PDP-10 for the VAX?
and in the shadows of the lower right-hand side, the dark reminders of the depths of depravity and sin that lie in wait for all of us!
The publisher's logo?
But why is a type of speech restricted simply because it isn't used to speak out against 'the Man'?
It's not. If we're referring to obscenity, it's restricted because it is believed to have "a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt its readers by inciting lascivious thoughts or arousing lustful desires" (Commonwealth v. Isenstadt (1945), 318 Mass. 543 [62 N.E.2d 840, 844], or People v. Wepplo, 78 Cal.App.2d Supp. 959, free reg req'd).
There are other classes of speech that typified by GTA, for instance which may also have a substantial tendency to corrupt. Let's identify one such class as 'depictions of violence' for the moment. Now, depictions of violence may have a substantial tendency to corrupt, but because they are often used as vehicles of social or political commentary, are protected under the First Amendment. That's what this case (Video Software Dealers Assoc. v. Maleng, PDF) is about.
Obscenity, by legal definition, is "utterly without redeeming social importance" (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)). The full context of that quote is as follows:
Because the obscenity has "a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt", it is considered to be bad for society. Now, were obscenity used for social change, then it would be protected under the First Amendment. But it's not, so it isn't. From Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942):
Now, let's get back to VSDA v Maleng, since that's what this article is about. In the case of depictions of violence, it also may be considered to be bad for society. However, these are frequently works which contain vehicles for social opinion. That means that they merit First Amendment protection. The judge in this case said:
Contrary to apparent popular opinion, the government doesn't feel that violence is "less profane" than sexual content (which is distinct from obscenity, Roth v. US).
Why exactly is sex deemed to be worse than violence? Why are violent portrayals protected but sexual portrayals not?
Because the use of violence in literature has often been used to speak out against the government; less so for sex.
Personally, I find a naked woman less profane than a naked blade. But the free-speech protection offered here isn't about what is and isn't profane; it's about what is used to speak out against The Man. That needs to be protected.
From the decision:
I don't entirely agree with the following article, but I do feel it's relevant to this discussion.
........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?" The wealthy get all the breaks!". Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
Understanding Taxes - An Excellent Analogy
January 13, 2003
by Unknown
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on - it does make you think!!
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, (pointing to the tenth) got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too,
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!
Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest?
Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight-forward logic!
Since when is 7 billion in cash "not much left over"? Oh, since we're comparing it to their 56B before this maneuver, okay.
Well, they'd have the assets of the companies at that point. Sony has 10.34B in cash, but I don't know about Nintendo. Besides, they don't have to buy the entire outstanding stock supply, just a controlling interest.
I'm not saying it's likely. The console market just isn't important enough to them. But if they realized that-- for example-- eight of the Supreme Court justices couldn't get enough Zelda, and MS figured out effective forms of subliminal advertising, then it's a possible tack.
For what it's worth, if Microsoft really wanted to dominate this market:
Microsoft's cash holdings: 56.41B
Nintendo's market cap: 15.5B
Sony Corp's market cap: 33.57B
I mean, if they're blind, they probably aren't going to enjoy movies much, are they?
A number of movies, I understand, have narration tracks that are broadcast by the theater. The viewer wears a special set of headphones to hear narration of the action.
But it was NOT broadcast on television.
I'm lead to understand that it was on C-SPAN.
I suppose that since PC isn't explicitly in the text, it could be interpreted that way, but my assumption would be that the 4th ammendment still applies. Do other statutes regarding the issuance of warrants explicitly address PC?
You mean like the physical search warrant part of the FISA, which is two subchapterss back in the Code? Yes, it does explicitly require probable cause. In fact, it has a whole section about the necessary judicial review, as opposed to the mere subordinate clause that the PATRIOT act uses.
I haven't heard this. In fact, the only thing I've heard about this process have been statements from Ashcroft himself, where he rebuts criticisms that the PATRIOT Act allows DoJ to run around without any oversight.
Of course he does. But while he says that out of one mouth, he sticks his tougne out of the other.
First, I'll point out to whoever's following the text that the section in question is part of Sec 215 of the Act. The "Sec 501" heading is part of some replacement text.
applied by a high ranking FBI official,
Asst SiC isn't particularly high-ranking.
and be approved by a judge.
They don't need probable cause. That's the big deal; they just can say "We need it for a terrorism investigation" and the judge approves it.
Also, Section 502 calls for semi-annual congressional reviews.
Which, IIRC, have met with only stonewalling by the AG.
Y'know, come to think, you may be able to rig up an old baseball auto-pitcher (the kind with the two tires). Make it one tire, vertically mounted, with a tiny gap above a steel plate.
Disclaimer: This is just a hypothetical device. I assume no responsibility for safety or liability if you actually build it.