This is where one of my old teachers would say "its too bad, since most of the information on the internet isn't authoritative."
Well, after having worked on Wikipedia for a few years more or less, I learned that books in the library may be "authoritative", but that doesn't mean crap most of the time. They are often biased, faddish, outdated or just plain wrong. More and more I'm learning that as far as learning goes, it's getting less important that sources are "authoritative" and more important that the source is verifiable and defensible.
This was not done by Disney--this was done by Ghibli at the behest of Disney. Jo Hisaishi came back to redo some music and add some more, which he seemed really happy to do.
Part of the Ghibli-Disney distribution agreement was that Disney could not make changes to their movies. In reality, this means that Disney can pressure Ghibli to make changes to their own movies.
I don't know if Miyazaki approves of this, but he probably doesn't care as long as it's not changing the actual movie. The agreement also doesn't seem to cover strict translation. Note in Kiki's Delivery Service, the change in reference from Kiki drinking coffee to drinking cocoa (everyone drinks coffee in japan, but kids don't in the USA.)
Actually, go back to the newsgroups, maybe it was alt.fan.laserdisc or something in 1997-98 or so. Back before there was a newsgroup for DVD, the DVD people all hung out in the laserdisc newsgroups.
Anyway, when Divx came out, there was a hugeass backlash in the DVD community against it, and basically a grassroots effort was formed of people hanging out in Circuit City stores, and telling prospective buyers exactly what was wrong with Divx. I never did this myself since my area has no circuit city, but tons of people were doing it, along with stories of turning people off Divx.
At the time, Disney was intending to only release their animation titles on Divx rather than DVD (live action was excepted) and Warner Brothers was looking at doing the same thing, so the community (rightly) perceived a great threat from Divx. I fully believe that this had a lot to do with Divx failing, although a large portion of it was that the players simply cost too much, and initially only one store sold the players.
My basic point being though, that I can guarantee that large numbers of people certainly were turned off Divx by geek complaints in an indirect way.
If associations aren't based on subjective quantities, they'd be facts themselves. I'm not sure if this is what you were implying with your example, but say I make a database that is an association of words to colors; that is to say, I show the color blue, and that's associated with the word "blue". That's just a fact, and I don't see how that could be copyrighted, but someone compiled it. How do you determine how much work is necessary, or how unobvious the association has to be before it can be copyrighted?
When you are dealing with populations of data, or even randomly chosen subsets, these associations don't take creativity to make, just work. That's why a painting is copyrihtable, but found art isn't (or shouldn't be.) Painting takes creativity, and found art takes work (to find.) Copyright protects creative work--to me, copyrighting databases of facts is equivalent to scientists patenting genes they found in nature. You may have worked hard to find it, but you still don't own it. it was already there.
My experiences: Mozilla is sluggish on my 400Mhz G3 Macintosh running OS X. Safari runs a lot nicer. Additionally, I have an SGI Indigo2 200Mhz that barely runs mozilla. I use Netscape 4.7 on that one. Mozilla isn't great on all platforms. Places where I can run it, I do however.
Presumably the informative part is that Photoshop doesn't have crap for pallette tools, which is unexpected to most people. This is the second post that points out illustrator is for illustration and photoshop is for photo editing, which is pretty explicit from their names, but I should have made myself more clear that I was referring to raster art. Neither application is useful for working natively with palletted raster art, which gimp handles pretty well, and was the reason I pointed this out.
As far as "image manipulation" features go that's about as relevant as animated gif generation is in Photoshop. it's a gimme for the (good) chance that the graphics professional nowadays also does some web work. This is good news for the Gimp user who is more web-centric, since for actual print work, cmyk export sucks.
Tons of people bitch and moan about java being piss poor for application X or application Y. Right now, I'm looking at an ostensibly "Java" Oracle Forms 9i form that will only run on one JVM, Oracle's JVM. It's convenient for them that they had the money to license Java so they could make their own JVM, its more convenient for us that most people DON'T have that ability.
Imagine for a moment that every company had the source to Java and the ability to hack the shit out of it to accelerate their own products. It already happened with both Oracle and Microsoft, which was wholly unrelated to the fact that the source to Java was closed. It becomes relevant to the argument at hand when you realize that they were two of the few companies who could embark on such a venture, simply because of prohibitive cost.
It's possible the only reason this fragmentation hasn't happened right now is because there's no open source JVM that's realistically close to running everything that Sun's can.
I'm simply playing devil's advocate here, although I do believe closed/open is not relevant to the fact that the MS implementation was incompatible. It was incompatible because they programmed it that way, irregardless of the fact that the source was available or not.
Part of graphic design is designing for your audience. I don't know a single person who looked at Google and said "this needs more gaudy shit." These guys totally failed.
I suppose it's inevitable. It's hard to justify your design competence to the average joe or PHB with less rather than more. I'm sure a lot of people if questioned would look at Google right now and think "anybody could design that."
I can only speak for the work I've done for newspapers myself, but Photoshop is very good for content creation. Namely, merging photographs and clip art into a different sort of composition than the original parts, where photo manipulation IS content creation. I don't think I have a single work I've done in Painter that hasn't been run through photoshop, usually for compositing or for the great selection tools. Of course, by the time you start adding type or captions, you are importing your custom graphic into illustrator or pagemaker or the like if you are competent, so I don't disagree with you there.
The problem with Photoshop is that its diversity has effectively smashed development in similarly versatile and featured drawing programs. I know people who still use GEM, because they haven't found anything better for working with palletted art. It's really tempting to look at things like Photoshop simply because it already has so many of the tools you'd want.
My point was that the government has an obligation to police the airwaves while it does not have an obligation (indeed, arguably is prohibited from) regulating content on cable. By virtue of the fact that radio bandwidth is a finite quantity, public interest factors much higher.
The V-chip does help your argument for your proposed system, which I would approve of--except for the single fact that the V-Chip can't get back every half hour of television that's targeted solely at adults. The government has an interest in making sure that everyone has equal access to television, which the V-Chip and corresponding enforcement alone cannot provide.
Public intoxication as an example could be extended further. Drinking is not allowed on the street, but in designated areas (like a restaurant or bar) you are allowed. By analogy, I'd say television is like the public place, and the cable is like the bar.
Specifically regarding obsoleteness, are you referring to your belief that cable represents a better system as in example 2, or that its arbitrarily enforcable as in example 1? Sodomy is a private act which is basically unenforcable while sodomy on television is public and quite easy to prove in a court of law. In the case of lesser infractions, the FCC actually errs on the side of caution. Anything questionable might get a warning if its particularly bad, but in the other Viacom/Infinity FCC fines, well understood content rules were broken. In the case in question, if you assume that the exposure on television was planned (as most rational human beings would,) they knew they were breaking regulation.
I also believe that people want to control what we see, think and hear, but I believe it is more frequently the media conglomerates, who will drop a diverse audience to widen a more commercially viable subset by pandering to prurient interest. It's about getting and keeping viewership, which is oh so much easier if you aim low and stay low.
Disagreement notwithstanding, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Theres a hugeass difference between cable and broadcast. Broadcast uses airwaves, which are limited and publicly owned. Cable is a privately owned network that potentially has unlimited bandwidth (by adding more cable/channels.) People PAY for the privelege of aquiring cable television. I as a citizen already own the public airwaves.
The laws regarding broadcast television are quite simple. Television stations do not own airwaves, they are granted limited use of them by the government. Since they are publicly owned and limited, the government has an interest in regulating this so that a small portion of people, say for example the people who think that nudity is acceptable in all public venues, don't have the ability to coopt television for only themselves.
The same way that the government is responsible for providing police for public travelways and services for all citizens, they are responsible for making sure that television doesn't become anarchy. We all own it, so it should me more or less accessible to all.
The Janet Jacksom "event" which I am so incredibly sick of, was a commercial spectacle designed to cater to the prurience of the american viewer. It violated community standards in close to 100 out of 100 communities in the United States of America. It had no artistic intentions, it was pandering rather than entertaining. It by definition is the lowest common denominator of content on television. It was wrong, Viacom should be punished, there is nothing wrong or obsolete with telling these clowns enough is enough, they don't own television.
but palletted drawing in The Gimp remains superior to Photoshop. Photoshop was neither designed nor marketed towards any of the markets that do pallete based art/graphic design.
Quothe the GPL: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
Quothe Dictionary.com: "obfuscate: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand"
If you alter the source to make it hard to read, you broke this rule. To merely say "obfuscate" is actually _more_ vague than what the GPL says, in my opinion. My code is already obfuscated, simply because I'm a lazy programmer.
The GPL explicitly states source code must not be obfuscated.
Personally though, I think advanced obfuscation would make it REALLY easy for closed source applications to conceal swiped GPL code. I'm sure its already happened, but up to this point, you could do some binary comparisons, or trace it in runtime. With this stuff the article was talking about, you couldn't do that anymore. What's to stop companies from violating the GPL license? their own sense of ethics. Yeah, we're in trouble.
By the way, if someone's interested in investigating a possible GPL violation, take a look at the Dolphin Gamecube emulator. Their last version had error messages from a GPL powerPC emulation core, and the binary is obfuscated:-/
The MPAA holds trademarks on their ratings, and has no interest in allowing competitors to to use them. It's the same reason that the MPAA ratings aren't used for television ratings.
You may be interested to know a little more about how these ratings came to be. I remember a bit of it.
Video games were under flak because of crap like Mortal Kombat and Time Killers, which used excessive violence as a selling point. Other stuff like the Sega CD Night Trap got a lot of criticism too. Joe Lieberman was heading up congressional investigations, and basically accusing the video game industry of molesting children.
The government gave the video game industry an ultimatum, come up with a video game rating system, or the government will come up with one for you. Obviously no one in the industry wanted the government to come up with a rating system, so they came up with what I thought was a pretty good one. To my recollection, it was a set of bars that had labels like violence, sexuality, swearing. Each bar would fill from left to right based on the quantity of the attribute, which gave you a very finely grained description of what was in the game. Well anyway, the government came back and determined that this was unacceptable, because people are dumb and need a single letter to tell them if its ok to buy "Maniac killers from hell" for their 8 year old. So they came up with the system we have now based heavily on advice from the government.
My main interest in bringing this up is that now that the current system is ingrained, people don't think about how it was basically coerced on the industry at the time, and isn't really that good compared to some of the ones that the industry came up with on their own. I worked for many years in a video game store, and any time that people mentioned the video game rating, it was to complain about how vague it was. So basically, the only people who actually CHECKED the rating didn't like the system.
The "terrible" video game industry came up with a rating system that actually described what was in the game, and the government coerced a system that seems to only have been designed to help you make a decision in under 30 seconds. This is great for everyone but the industry, since when the rating doesn't work, it absolves the government and parents of responsibility and places blame on the unlucky party left over.
It's power is also what makes it the most dangerous, in my opinion. It's been used for a lot of good, but its wide open to rampant abuse. It's actually abused far more frequently and severely at the state level, I'd say. I'm thinking specifically in cases where courts are handing down rulings on things that aren't even court cases. That's just abusing authority.
While not exactly referring to judicial fiat, things like mandatory sentencing legislation are in direct response to courts just doing whatever they want. people complain about mandatory sentencing taking away discretion from judges without pausing to think why people are so interested in this legislation to begin with. I see this the same way. Juducial fiat is either a strong defense against the tyranny of the majority, or its a flagrant abuse of possibly the most powerful branch of government. if they use it too much, they are going to lose it, and thats worse in the long run for everyone.
This is neither here nor there to this discussion, but my first impression of this is that you were a strategic business partner, and the stagehands were inferiors. I dunno if this is the case, I've never met him personally. I'd like to actually, I've loved Macintosh since OS X, so I have a lot of respect for the man myself.
Many of the founding fathers wished to outlaw slavery, but they knew they'd never get a constitution with that. It'd be kind of like today if you tried to put a "ban abortion" plank in the constitution (please don't draw inferences from this.) If that was tried, it would never happen. They had to sacrifice a limb to save the body, and they did. I give them more credit for that than strict adherence to a futile goal. At the time, everyone was very aware the Constitution had limitations. One of the outcomes of that was the bill of rights.
As for perverting it, I'd say the biggest examples of this are excessive federalization of what clearly are state issues; and judicial fiat, which is probably the biggest threat our constitution has. Other than that, we've been on a steady and fairly unbroken course of realizing the constitution not only as the founding fathers intended, but even further toward its philosophical ideal.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I run Windows XP too...Wait, are we talking about the same thing?
Well, after having worked on Wikipedia for a few years more or less, I learned that books in the library may be "authoritative", but that doesn't mean crap most of the time. They are often biased, faddish, outdated or just plain wrong. More and more I'm learning that as far as learning goes, it's getting less important that sources are "authoritative" and more important that the source is verifiable and defensible.
Wikipedia is a world treasure.
This was not done by Disney--this was done by Ghibli at the behest of Disney. Jo Hisaishi came back to redo some music and add some more, which he seemed really happy to do.
Part of the Ghibli-Disney distribution agreement was that Disney could not make changes to their movies. In reality, this means that Disney can pressure Ghibli to make changes to their own movies.
I don't know if Miyazaki approves of this, but he probably doesn't care as long as it's not changing the actual movie. The agreement also doesn't seem to cover strict translation. Note in Kiki's Delivery Service, the change in reference from Kiki drinking coffee to drinking cocoa (everyone drinks coffee in japan, but kids don't in the USA.)
Actually, go back to the newsgroups, maybe it was alt.fan.laserdisc or something in 1997-98 or so. Back before there was a newsgroup for DVD, the DVD people all hung out in the laserdisc newsgroups.
Anyway, when Divx came out, there was a hugeass backlash in the DVD community against it, and basically a grassroots effort was formed of people hanging out in Circuit City stores, and telling prospective buyers exactly what was wrong with Divx. I never did this myself since my area has no circuit city, but tons of people were doing it, along with stories of turning people off Divx.
At the time, Disney was intending to only release their animation titles on Divx rather than DVD (live action was excepted) and Warner Brothers was looking at doing the same thing, so the community (rightly) perceived a great threat from Divx. I fully believe that this had a lot to do with Divx failing, although a large portion of it was that the players simply cost too much, and initially only one store sold the players.
My basic point being though, that I can guarantee that large numbers of people certainly were turned off Divx by geek complaints in an indirect way.
If associations aren't based on subjective quantities, they'd be facts themselves. I'm not sure if this is what you were implying with your example, but say I make a database that is an association of words to colors; that is to say, I show the color blue, and that's associated with the word "blue". That's just a fact, and I don't see how that could be copyrighted, but someone compiled it. How do you determine how much work is necessary, or how unobvious the association has to be before it can be copyrighted?
When you are dealing with populations of data, or even randomly chosen subsets, these associations don't take creativity to make, just work. That's why a painting is copyrihtable, but found art isn't (or shouldn't be.) Painting takes creativity, and found art takes work (to find.) Copyright protects creative work--to me, copyrighting databases of facts is equivalent to scientists patenting genes they found in nature. You may have worked hard to find it, but you still don't own it. it was already there.
My experiences:
Mozilla is sluggish on my 400Mhz G3 Macintosh running OS X. Safari runs a lot nicer. Additionally, I have an SGI Indigo2 200Mhz that barely runs mozilla. I use Netscape 4.7 on that one. Mozilla isn't great on all platforms. Places where I can run it, I do however.
I hope they show a Japanese official on C-Span trying to pronounce "Ballmer"
Presumably the informative part is that Photoshop doesn't have crap for pallette tools, which is unexpected to most people. This is the second post that points out illustrator is for illustration and photoshop is for photo editing, which is pretty explicit from their names, but I should have made myself more clear that I was referring to raster art. Neither application is useful for working natively with palletted raster art, which gimp handles pretty well, and was the reason I pointed this out.
As far as "image manipulation" features go that's about as relevant as animated gif generation is in Photoshop. it's a gimme for the (good) chance that the graphics professional nowadays also does some web work. This is good news for the Gimp user who is more web-centric, since for actual print work, cmyk export sucks.
Theoretically speaking:
Tons of people bitch and moan about java being piss poor for application X or application Y. Right now, I'm looking at an ostensibly "Java" Oracle Forms 9i form that will only run on one JVM, Oracle's JVM. It's convenient for them that they had the money to license Java so they could make their own JVM, its more convenient for us that most people DON'T have that ability.
Imagine for a moment that every company had the source to Java and the ability to hack the shit out of it to accelerate their own products. It already happened with both Oracle and Microsoft, which was wholly unrelated to the fact that the source to Java was closed. It becomes relevant to the argument at hand when you realize that they were two of the few companies who could embark on such a venture, simply because of prohibitive cost.
It's possible the only reason this fragmentation hasn't happened right now is because there's no open source JVM that's realistically close to running everything that Sun's can.
I'm simply playing devil's advocate here, although I do believe closed/open is not relevant to the fact that the MS implementation was incompatible. It was incompatible because they programmed it that way, irregardless of the fact that the source was available or not.
Part of graphic design is designing for your audience. I don't know a single person who looked at Google and said "this needs more gaudy shit." These guys totally failed.
I suppose it's inevitable. It's hard to justify your design competence to the average joe or PHB with less rather than more. I'm sure a lot of people if questioned would look at Google right now and think "anybody could design that."
I can only speak for the work I've done for newspapers myself, but Photoshop is very good for content creation. Namely, merging photographs and clip art into a different sort of composition than the original parts, where photo manipulation IS content creation. I don't think I have a single work I've done in Painter that hasn't been run through photoshop, usually for compositing or for the great selection tools. Of course, by the time you start adding type or captions, you are importing your custom graphic into illustrator or pagemaker or the like if you are competent, so I don't disagree with you there.
The problem with Photoshop is that its diversity has effectively smashed development in similarly versatile and featured drawing programs. I know people who still use GEM, because they haven't found anything better for working with palletted art. It's really tempting to look at things like Photoshop simply because it already has so many of the tools you'd want.
Apologies, I got off-track.
My point was that the government has an obligation to police the airwaves while it does not have an obligation (indeed, arguably is prohibited from) regulating content on cable. By virtue of the fact that radio bandwidth is a finite quantity, public interest factors much higher.
The V-chip does help your argument for your proposed system, which I would approve of--except for the single fact that the V-Chip can't get back every half hour of television that's targeted solely at adults. The government has an interest in making sure that everyone has equal access to television, which the V-Chip and corresponding enforcement alone cannot provide.
Public intoxication as an example could be extended further. Drinking is not allowed on the street, but in designated areas (like a restaurant or bar) you are allowed. By analogy, I'd say television is like the public place, and the cable is like the bar.
Specifically regarding obsoleteness, are you referring to your belief that cable represents a better system as in example 2, or that its arbitrarily enforcable as in example 1? Sodomy is a private act which is basically unenforcable while sodomy on television is public and quite easy to prove in a court of law. In the case of lesser infractions, the FCC actually errs on the side of caution. Anything questionable might get a warning if its particularly bad, but in the other Viacom/Infinity FCC fines, well understood content rules were broken. In the case in question, if you assume that the exposure on television was planned (as most rational human beings would,) they knew they were breaking regulation.
I also believe that people want to control what we see, think and hear, but I believe it is more frequently the media conglomerates, who will drop a diverse audience to widen a more commercially viable subset by pandering to prurient interest. It's about getting and keeping viewership, which is oh so much easier if you aim low and stay low.
Disagreement notwithstanding, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Theres a hugeass difference between cable and broadcast. Broadcast uses airwaves, which are limited and publicly owned. Cable is a privately owned network that potentially has unlimited bandwidth (by adding more cable/channels.) People PAY for the privelege of aquiring cable television. I as a citizen already own the public airwaves.
The laws regarding broadcast television are quite simple. Television stations do not own airwaves, they are granted limited use of them by the government. Since they are publicly owned and limited, the government has an interest in regulating this so that a small portion of people, say for example the people who think that nudity is acceptable in all public venues, don't have the ability to coopt television for only themselves.
The same way that the government is responsible for providing police for public travelways and services for all citizens, they are responsible for making sure that television doesn't become anarchy. We all own it, so it should me more or less accessible to all.
The Janet Jacksom "event" which I am so incredibly sick of, was a commercial spectacle designed to cater to the prurience of the american viewer. It violated community standards in close to 100 out of 100 communities in the United States of America. It had no artistic intentions, it was pandering rather than entertaining. It by definition is the lowest common denominator of content on television. It was wrong, Viacom should be punished, there is nothing wrong or obsolete with telling these clowns enough is enough, they don't own television.
but palletted drawing in The Gimp remains superior to Photoshop. Photoshop was neither designed nor marketed towards any of the markets that do pallete based art/graphic design.
Is it ribbed for my protection or my pleasure?
Quothe the GPL: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it."
Quothe Dictionary.com: "obfuscate: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand"
If you alter the source to make it hard to read, you broke this rule. To merely say "obfuscate" is actually _more_ vague than what the GPL says, in my opinion. My code is already obfuscated, simply because I'm a lazy programmer.
The GPL explicitly states source code must not be obfuscated.
:-/
Personally though, I think advanced obfuscation would make it REALLY easy for closed source applications to conceal swiped GPL code. I'm sure its already happened, but up to this point, you could do some binary comparisons, or trace it in runtime. With this stuff the article was talking about, you couldn't do that anymore. What's to stop companies from violating the GPL license? their own sense of ethics. Yeah, we're in trouble.
By the way, if someone's interested in investigating a possible GPL violation, take a look at the Dolphin Gamecube emulator. Their last version had error messages from a GPL powerPC emulation core, and the binary is obfuscated
Oh wait.
I found the site contents somewhat ironic:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
The MPAA holds trademarks on their ratings, and has no interest in allowing competitors to to use them. It's the same reason that the MPAA ratings aren't used for television ratings.
You may be interested to know a little more about how these ratings came to be. I remember a bit of it.
Video games were under flak because of crap like Mortal Kombat and Time Killers, which used excessive violence as a selling point. Other stuff like the Sega CD Night Trap got a lot of criticism too. Joe Lieberman was heading up congressional investigations, and basically accusing the video game industry of molesting children.
The government gave the video game industry an ultimatum, come up with a video game rating system, or the government will come up with one for you. Obviously no one in the industry wanted the government to come up with a rating system, so they came up with what I thought was a pretty good one. To my recollection, it was a set of bars that had labels like violence, sexuality, swearing. Each bar would fill from left to right based on the quantity of the attribute, which gave you a very finely grained description of what was in the game. Well anyway, the government came back and determined that this was unacceptable, because people are dumb and need a single letter to tell them if its ok to buy "Maniac killers from hell" for their 8 year old. So they came up with the system we have now based heavily on advice from the government.
My main interest in bringing this up is that now that the current system is ingrained, people don't think about how it was basically coerced on the industry at the time, and isn't really that good compared to some of the ones that the industry came up with on their own. I worked for many years in a video game store, and any time that people mentioned the video game rating, it was to complain about how vague it was. So basically, the only people who actually CHECKED the rating didn't like the system.
The "terrible" video game industry came up with a rating system that actually described what was in the game, and the government coerced a system that seems to only have been designed to help you make a decision in under 30 seconds. This is great for everyone but the industry, since when the rating doesn't work, it absolves the government and parents of responsibility and places blame on the unlucky party left over.
It's power is also what makes it the most dangerous, in my opinion. It's been used for a lot of good, but its wide open to rampant abuse. It's actually abused far more frequently and severely at the state level, I'd say. I'm thinking specifically in cases where courts are handing down rulings on things that aren't even court cases. That's just abusing authority.
While not exactly referring to judicial fiat, things like mandatory sentencing legislation are in direct response to courts just doing whatever they want. people complain about mandatory sentencing taking away discretion from judges without pausing to think why people are so interested in this legislation to begin with. I see this the same way. Juducial fiat is either a strong defense against the tyranny of the majority, or its a flagrant abuse of possibly the most powerful branch of government. if they use it too much, they are going to lose it, and thats worse in the long run for everyone.
This is neither here nor there to this discussion, but my first impression of this is that you were a strategic business partner, and the stagehands were inferiors. I dunno if this is the case, I've never met him personally. I'd like to actually, I've loved Macintosh since OS X, so I have a lot of respect for the man myself.
Many of the founding fathers wished to outlaw slavery, but they knew they'd never get a constitution with that. It'd be kind of like today if you tried to put a "ban abortion" plank in the constitution (please don't draw inferences from this.) If that was tried, it would never happen. They had to sacrifice a limb to save the body, and they did. I give them more credit for that than strict adherence to a futile goal. At the time, everyone was very aware the Constitution had limitations. One of the outcomes of that was the bill of rights.
As for perverting it, I'd say the biggest examples of this are excessive federalization of what clearly are state issues; and judicial fiat, which is probably the biggest threat our constitution has. Other than that, we've been on a steady and fairly unbroken course of realizing the constitution not only as the founding fathers intended, but even further toward its philosophical ideal.
I was just thinking about my concealed carry permit, and how some businesses bar my entrance because of a perfectly legal license issued by the state.
Also, How my car can drive in excess of 140 miles per hour, but the speed limit is 55.
If someone starts cranking their horseless carriage in a movie theater, rest assured I will be annoyed about that also.