We can observe natural selection happening in a matter of days with some bacteria in a petri dish - it's an extremely well established scientific theory. We know it happens.
Had you actually read the article linked to in the summary, you would have found that the discussion was about the use of the word "theory" instead of "fact" when referring to natural selection as the orgin of life. What you observe in your petri dish today proves nothing about what happened before there was anyone around to observe.
The article was about removing Natural Selection from the texts.
No, it wasn't. Quoting therefrom:
"To teach that natural selection is the answer to origins is wrong," Fair said. "I don't have a problem with teaching theories. I don't think it should be taught as fact."
It wasn't about REMOVING anything from the texts, it was about using the word "theory" when talking about "natural selection" and the origin of life. The headline for this article was wrong.
Anyone who doesn't realize the animals (and corporations and products) are a result of adopting to their environments, is not going to fare well in any form.
And this kind of unfounded claim is what most folks would call "fearmongering" and hyperbole. Nothing was changed about teaching evolution other than s/fact/theory when referring to origins. If you think that means that the kids won't be taught about evolution and "adopting" [sic] you're wrong.
If they don't like what Obama is doing they could always impeach him for it,
Are you seriously suggesting that the criterion for impeaching a President be lowered from treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors all the way down to "don't like what he's doing"? Just askin'. Be careful what you ask for.
than the impeachment of Clinton over a reflexive lie about sex.
Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. As a lawyer, he knew he should not make "reflexive lies", whatever the subject was. If it was something he felt he needed to be lying about, why was he doing it?
I've never seen a cash machine with the option to change the PIN. Perhaps there's a good reason for this? If you walk away from the machine with your card in it a crook can maybe withdraw the rest of your daily limit and the card will be kicked back out. He's left with a card and no PIN. If he could simply change the PIN while the card was in the machine, he'd have the card and the PIN...
Now, the smart way to allow that change would be the same way passwd works. Ask for the current PIN before changing things. But given the silly way ATMs are programmed it is better that complicated things like changing a PIN are left to the humans inside. (E.g., you cannot withdraw anything smaller than a $20 (or a $5) but the ATM wants you to enter the dollars AND CENTS for your withdrawal. Every time I put my card in the ATM it asks me for my language. It has my card, it knows my account number, it should be able to remember that simple detail.)
People don't walk away from machines that way? You've never had your card "eaten" by an ATM, I bet. I have. I've had to go inside the bank to get someone to fix the problem, and if someone walks up while I'm gone...
Interesting argument, but not really true. Very few jobs require an understanding of evolution to earn a living.
It's not even that. Very few jobs require an ignorance of the views of the origin of life other than natural selection. I can't think of any, even biologist, that would put such a limit on such knowledge. In fact, being taught that there are other views is called, in many classes, tolerance.
If you read the article, you'll find that the problem is not "teaching evolution", it is teaching that evolution as the origin of life is a fact. Nothing was said about not teaching evolution, so assuming that the schools would produce students ignorant about it is just hyperbole and fearmongering. Cue the people who will pronounce that "evolution is not origin of life", but yes, that is how it is used, and that is the specific reference made in the article.
A school can do a much better job of turning out educated people if it is allowed to talk about all the ideas and show where each is lacking or preferred. Perhaps that is why there is such venom here whenever evolution is questioned? Many people haven't been taught where the theory isn't appropriately used and what other people actually believe? Like the poster who lept from the objection to teaching evolution as the origin of life as a fact (as in the article) to "people who believe the earth is 6000 years old".
Actually, no. All debit transactions made through the typical POS systems in Europe are entirely reversible within something like a day or so. So the procedure is the same - you notice a problem,
I don't look at my online statements every day. By the time I notice a debit problem, the account will have been empty for on average two weeks, potentially an entire month. That's a significant problem when the checks written on that account start bouncing. Yeah, how nice, my account has been empty for two weeks but they'll maybe put it back within a day, if they decide that there was a problem.
I'll stick with the banks being stuck while the problem is resolved, thanks.
The only way you have a real problem is if someone steals your card and your PIN and manages to make an ATM withdrawal up to the maximum daily limit
Debit cards in the US are not limited to a "maximum daily limit" when you are making purchases with them. If I have $2000 in the account, $2000 can go out the door with one purchase.
before you notice
Even assuming the only debit card fraud is from ATM withdrawals, what makes you think most people would notice there is a problem before the statement comes out showing $0 balance? The $500 a day limit on my ATM withdrawals would mean a four day spree and the $2000 is gone. Ok, maybe the bank/credit union would send a notice when the first check bounced, but by that time the balance is 0 and the problem is real.
It sure would be nice if the links in a summary of an article actually described what was being presented instead of simply linking to a press release saying exactly the same thing that the summary says. Respects privacy? In what way does ANY printer not respect your privacy? Is anyone seriously suggesting that my printer goes online to look up my bank account details after I print a statement that contains my account number?
The FACT is that the "award" is Respect Your Freedom, not Respect Your Privacy, and it is because the system meets whatever criteria the OSF has for that award for open software.
This kind of hype makes me look askance at the company that produces it.
When you use it you choose whether you use it as a credit or a debit card. The level of risk for both is identical.
That's the party line of the credit unions who issue debit cards preferentially over credit cards. (Can they even do credit cards?)
The level of risk is not the same. There's one very very large significant difference.
Credit: a funny charge appears on my bill, I contest it and don't pay it. During the entire contest process, I don't pay it.
Debit: a funny charge appears and clears out my account. I don't notice this immediately because my statement doesn't come out but once a month. During the time my account is empty ten checks bounce and I get dinged with fees, both from the credit union and from the companies that haven't been paid yet. Once I notice the problem and contest the charge, the credit union starts to investigate. During the investigation, I still don't have my money.
THAT is a significant difference. While it may all work out the same after a long time, the loss of money for two months or so is a problem.
Here's a question for the chip and pin people: how do you make online purchases? Do you have to give them your pin? Or is there no difference in online buying? Since a lot of fraud comes from online buying, how does chip and pin solve the fraud problem?
No, I've never stated anything about web browsing.
I DID, and the statement of mine that you quoted did. You're telling me that statement is wrong, and now you prove you didn't bother reading it to start with.
Here, I'll repeat it yet again:
And, I dare say, you will still have a lot of people who disapprove of net neutrality if you tell them that it would prohibit their ISP from giving their Netflix stream priority over someone else's web browsing.
"Web browsing". "Priority over". "WOULD PROHIBIT". It says nothing about Netflix users being "the enemy", and it certainly does not say that net neutrality requires the streaming video services receive priority over other web services. It says exactly the opposite. "Would prohibit". Do you not know the difference between "prohibit" and "require"?
Nope. Netlfix isn't a *service*, it's a *company* that provides streaming video services.
The use of the company Netflix is a shorthand way of referring to "streaming web services." Had you bothered to read the discussion, you'd have noticed that the GP started by referring to "AWS", and then moved to the specific example of Netflix. Is that your problem? You can't generalize from a specific company into a broader context of services similar to what they provide? You're stuck because you think I said that net neutrality laws referred to Netflix specifically?
You can't throttle Netflix but have your video services run at full rate.
And you don't think my statement about "no preferences" applies to that situation?
If you knew them, and I was as wrong as you say I am, then why wouldn't you quote them to prove me wrong?
Because you are wrong by putting words in my mouth when you claim I am trying to argue against net neutrality or that I've said that net neutrality demands preference for streaming video services (aka Netflix) over other web uses. Quoting the net neutrality laws won't change your deliberate twists of my words, it will only encourage you because you'll think you convinced me that net neutrality doesn't require such preferences when I'VE NEVER SAID IT REQUIRES THEM, AND HAVE, IN FACT, SAID EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. "It would prohibit" such preferences.
hey I'm talking about Windows 7/8 here. In which ways do you think that MS designed it as a general programming environment for the end user? I see none.
I've had no problem installing programming languages on my Windows 7 systems. You're calling the hardware "not a computer" because the operating system doesn't come with GUI IDEs for your favorite language? Wow. Then VAXen aren't computers, either, despite their long history of computing, because VMS didn't come with a general purpose programming language for free.
By the time you make cygwin work on it, you could have installed Linux instead,
You know, the fact that many Linux distributions come with the -devel packages installed doesn't mean they all do. I've had to install my share of -devel this and that just so I could program on a Linux system. As I recall, I've even had to install a gcc or two to get C.
and that one comes with all the programming tools by default.
I'm glad that every distribution you use has all kinds of things that may not be required for the end user by default. Some distro authors are more restrained and want to serve their target audiences better.
That still leaves the fact that there are many many computers out in the world where end users aren't expected to program them and they don't have IDEs installed by default, if one is available at all.
Your opinion of what you think it should mean is unrelated to what's actually in the bills. Try reading them again (or, likely, for the first time) and quote a section that would make throttling P2P in congested conditions illegal.
Now you've converted web browsing into "P2P" to try to support your argument. Sir, if the law would prevent an ISP from throttling Netflix in preference to other web services, then it would prevent throttling other web services in preference to Netflix. Neutrality means "no preferences", not "well, it's ok because I want my Netflix and don't care about other people..."
You are pushing hate.
Bullshit. I simply pointed out that the people who want their Netflix movies in preference to other people's web browsing will be unhappy with any law that prevents them getting priority. Just like people who currently think other people's web browsing is getting priority over their Netflix are unhappy. The latter is the entire point of the original article! "Hey, someone is throttling my Netflix at home and it doesn't happen for my commercial account at work, and other things other people are doing aren't throttled, so I know it must be deliberate!"
So you took my offense at your wrong statements
Your twisted and ridiculous interpretations of what I said, you mean.
to mean that I must be the "enemy"
And here we go again. Show me where I called you "the enemy", or any Netflix user "the enemy". No, your decision to misread what I've said as an attack on net neutrality because it would prevent you getting priority for your Netflix in preference to other people's traffic shows me that you think your Netflix is a natural right and other people's network traffic isn't as important. Otherwise you'd accept that net neutrality would prevent your preferential treatment.
As you are speaking out against net neutrality
I am doing no such thing, and you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. I pointed out that the sudden appearance of support for net neutrality that the GP claimed would happen if only it were presented to people in "the right way" was not likely to be unanimous. That's not "speaking out against net neutrality". It's a statement of human nature, which you've demonstrated is correct.
It's not about requiring that everything else be slowed to allow in Netflix.
I didn't say it was. In fact, I've said several times it means "NO PREFERENCE". How you can read "no preference" and think I said it means Netflix gets higher priority is beyond understanding. I was quite explicit in saying that people who would WANT Netflix prioritized over other people's traffic will be UNHAPPY that net neutrality would not ALLOW it. How you read that and wound up thinking I said the net neutrality would REQUIRE it is... well, either stupidity or malice.
with a single provider you're likely not to get advanced features like multiple ips, ipv6, reverse dns etc
You may not get all that for free, but if there is a market for it they'll sell it. My last cable install, Charter would have happily sold me multiple static IP addresses, as would CenturyLink on DSL before that. They do "reverse DNS", it just doesn't necessarily resolve to what you want it to. These are cash cow services. Free money for them, pretty much. They'll move to IPv6 when necessary, and since you can get there from here there isn't a strong reason to do that.
Wow, you really have a middle-school social studies level of understanding how stuff works.
No, I have a direct understanding of how the local franchising authority has dealt with Comcast, what Comcast is paying, and where the money goes. I was on the cable advisory board for several years here, I met regularly with both the cable execs and city management. I was on the same kind of board in another city I lived in previously.
You better tell Comcast that they're wasting tons of money on those lobbyists because everything is fair and above-board and there's no need for them to dedicate so much money and effort to making it a non-free market.
Your statement is direct support for my claim that another company could enter the market. Why would Comcast bother spending money on lobbyists if nobody could compete with them anyway? The fact that you think they are trying to make the market less free means you also know that the market has some freedom to it. Completely free? Nobody said it was.
Here's a little story. Once there were two satellite radio companies.
Here's a little story. Comcast is not a satellite radio company. Comcast uses limited space on public rights of way to distribute their services, not a much more limited set of radio frequencies. That video signal that Comcast sends to the home on channel 2, e.g., doesn't mean that nobody else can use a similar distribution system to send their data into the home on channel 2. (And that is the problem with the idea of a government building the wires and letting companies use them. The signal Comcast sends to the home on Channel 2 on such a system DOES mean that another company cannot use the same channel. This is different than electric service/multiple providers because once the electrons are on the wire it doesn't matter where they came from.)
And remember, the point of this story is the lobbyists are writing the laws.
They have yet to write a law that prohibits any other company from getting a franchise agreement and trying to grab all the underserved potential customers that would apparently flock away from Comcast if only there were some competition. And yet, nobody has yet done that, at least not anywhere I've lived.
Yeah, they'd have to negotiate a franchise, and pay the same fees Comcast does for access to the rights of way. Boo hoo. What a death grip on the local market that is. And it's not even Comcast that really pays the franchise fee, it appears as a line item on every customer's bill, added right on top of all the other stuff.
The city would be happy for someone to come compete so that those who aren't paying franchise fees to the city could start doing that. (They even wanted to tack a franchise fee onto cell phone bills so they could grab more money out of our pockets, but saner heads prevailed.) Comcast would have nothing to say about it, they signed a non-exclusive agreement. All we need is a company that thinks they could make a profit from all the unserved people here, and those companies just don't exist.
At least for android, downloading the sdk and running your first app on a phone is a matter of less than an hour (up to bandwidth limitations).
And for the "PC" that Napalm claims isn't a computer because it doesn't come with a programming language, it takes even less time to install Perl or Python or... and he's ignoring the batch file ability already there.
"A computer" has a certain set of properties, which do not include "spiffy GUI programming environment". Isn't it a shame when you young folks start thinking that something isn't a computer just because it lacks conveniences? In the new world of Things on the Internet many of our computers will lack much of any interaction with humans, and you won't be able to program a lot of it yourself. That's a good thing, IMNSHO, because it will keep total chaos from spewing.
No version of net neutrality mentioned or proposed in congress has ever had that restriction
Of course it would. Net neutrality means NO PREFERENCES. That means that the ISP would be PROHIBITED from giving Netflix priority over simple web browsing. "And, I dare say, you will still have a lot of people who disapprove of net neutrality if you tell them that it would prohibit their ISP from giving their Netflix stream priority over someone else's web browsing." How could an ISP that is obeying any net neutrality law get away with throttling web browsing in preference to Netflix?
But equitable slowing for the purpose of network integrity was allowed in every version of net neutrality proposed or discussed in congress (and every serious submission I've read outside it).
If you read the sentence I wrote and though I was talking about "equitable slowing" when I said "priority over", well, I don't know how to fix that. I can only assume that you are one of the people who wants their Netflix to work all the time, every time, even if it means other people get slowed down to give it to you. That's "equitable slowing", right? Your movie packets get through, theirs get queued and delayed.
I still don't understand how that lie has propagated
What, you mean that net neutrality means no preferential treatment, either by slowing Netflix in preference to "normal" web, or slowing other people's web browsing in preference to Netflix? Gosh, I don't know how that lie could have started. Maybe someone who actually read the FCC order?
So why are you pushing for people to hate net neutrality for something it's never done?
The fact that you asked that question proves that you did not comprehend what you read. I "pushed" for nothing. I pointed out that there will be people who whine if an ISP cannot throttle others so that your Netflix can get through, and you conveniently made yourself known. And I was pretty explicit in saying that net neutrality would NOT allow them to do that, and that people who want their Netflix at the expense of others will oppose net neutrality because they can't be special users and get priority handling if net neutrality is enforced.
And people who don't want to be customers of a private monopoly have to do without service at all.
Your choice. Why should your choice not to buy something mean I'm forced to give it to you using my money?
And for something which involves laying cable in the ground a monopoly is how it will always end up
No. Only stupid cities granted cable TV exclusive franchises, and so the problem you have is with YOUR ELECTED GOVERNMENT who were morons. I don't know of any, by the way. All the ones I've dealt with are non-exclusive. The limit to how many cable TV services can use one pole is not "1" as you seem to think. It isn't infinity, however, so there needs to be some limit, and there needs to be a limit so that everyone plays well together.
In fact, another company can come in, but they don't because the market isn't there. And the proof of that is the very government systems we're talking about here.
Were another company to agree to the franchise and build out, then you'd claim they were a monopoly and refuse to deal with them. How you would explain refusing to deal with two different companies who are both monopolies in the same business, I don't know.
The only real solution would be a non profit to operate the physical infrastructure,
That doesn't solve the problem. It only creates a fake market run at sub-market pricing. It creates another layer of management and finger pointing.
Yes, we've already seen it, and I expect it is still happening to this day. You may not be old enough to remember when "Ma Bell" was the telephone company and it did it all. Local, long distance, hardware, wires, the whole enchilada. When there was a problem with a service you called the Ma Bell repair line and they had to deal with it. Then came divestiture and MCI, Sprint, local Bell operating companies, AT&T, etc. You had a problem with your phone? Well, if it was local, you called one company. Long distance service not working right? Call someone else. Dollars to doughnuts you call the long distance company and they'll tell you it is a local service problem; call local service and they won't look at it because it is an LD problem. Life was simply wonderful. Not.
And you want that to happen for what you want to claim are essential services like phone. "My phone isn't working." "It's a wire problem, call the city." "It's a problem with the provider, call them." "It's a problem with your CPE, call yourself."
The way cities handled this in the past was granting a single company a monopoly on providing a certain service.
Every cable TV franchise I've ever dealt with has been non-exclusive. That means no, it isn't a monopoly. And today, I can get the same (Internet) service from at least three companies in town, using three different delivery mechanisms. That pretty much proves that there is no monopoly on Internet service provided to anyone. Wait -- if I want satellite latency, four different delivery mechanisms from at least four different companies.
At the point you realize that the monopoly isn't, the rest of the argument for government competition with private sector falls apart.
The solution to this problem is for the city to own a fiber network and any company that wants to provide IP services (TV, phone, internet) over this network is free to do so.
The solution to the problem is to accept that a market has limits and that you won't always get everything you want from other people, you might have to pay for it yourself. Like the fellow in an adjoining comment who seems to think that the government should be giving him his cable TV and sports packages instead of paying $135 a month for it himself. Here's a clue to that guy: the cost of sports packages is primarily in the licensing of content. NFL/NHL/NCAA/etc don't hand out their programming for free. It's not the greedy cable company, it's the greedy sports teams/management/monopoly that you want to support by watching that's costing you the most bit of that money. (Oh, basic is expensive too, right? ESPN ad nauseum are not free, either.)
No private company can compete with a government operated one. People who don't want to be customers of the private company because they charge too much, or don't provide good enough service, or for whatever reason, don't have to pay anything. People who don't want to be customers of the government-run company wind up with the Sheriff tacking a note on their door telling them when the tax sale of that door, and the building it is attached to, will take place.
The fact you ask that means you probably won't accept the answer, but here goes...
Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.
If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.
Tell you what: As long as the entities that own these "private" networks...
Yes, I understand. Free markets only for those who do things the way you want them done. Otherwise the government must solve the problem by competing with them.
and as long as they stop asking for special tax dispensations,
In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for... anything the city council wants to use it for.
Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has. If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.
That denial of service attack must be delivered with the same priority as the tele-medicine feed, the way one bill was drafted.
Not quite that bad, if you assume that the DOS is not a legal use, but almost. FCC 10-201 says "No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications,
services, or non-harmful devices;", so while the unlawful DOS can be blocked, any blocking based on an RBL would be illegal under this rule. And this rule is the existing FCC rule that was overturned by the courts but a recent bill was submitted to re-enact it.
If you inform them that Net Neutrality is against throttling speeds,
Except that isn't what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality has nothing to do with residential and business accounts getting different data rates (which is the complaint in the original article.) It isn't about residential users seeing congestion because there are too many other users on their net segment. One hundred people on your net segment all browsing media-rich websites while you're trying to watch a movie on Netflix and your movie stalls isn't a violation of net neutrality. And it isn't even about the throttling of speeds when you overrun the limits on your data plan.
It IS about preferential treatment for certain data SOURCES. And this is going to be something that is hard for a user to prove since it will take more than "netflix sux but youtube still rocks", or "netflix at home sux but netflix at work rocks". And it will take a LOT more than some undocumented alleged rambling from a front-line tech support person.
And, I dare say, you will still have a lot of people who disapprove of net neutrality if you tell them that it would prohibit their ISP from giving their Netflix stream priority over someone else's web browsing. "So what if it takes five seconds for their web page to load instead of one, if them getting it in one means my Netflix hiccups?" (Perhaps this displays why using Netflix as the quintessential argument FOR net neutrality is a poor idea, since it is easy to dismiss it as just selfish people who want their movies to run without interruption even if it means everyone else's network experience suffers.)
or enable a free market, where we have more than one or two choices for broadband (or any other utility).... If we had 10+ ISP's to choose from, this wouldn't be an issue,
Well, unfortunately, we've already seen that a totally free market won't result in 10+ ISPs because there won't be enough money to keep all of them in business. Even back in the heyday of dialup ISPs our area only had three or four at best (not counting the AOLs of the world, which I wouldn't call a real ISP anyway), and they tanked because they couldn't keep customers when faster access came around. Heck, some parts of this state had NO ISPs until the state stepped in and provided it as a kind of "extension service". The one local ISP that survived the transition resells DSL for the local telco, so even that "competition" isn't really competition.
No, to get those 10+ ISPs there will have to be heavy subsidies, and that creates something very different than a free market.
So you tell a story and you don't want anybody else to tell that same story, or to tell a similar story, or to tell a completely different story using characters in your story. What about my right to free speech? Why does your desire to maintain exclusivity of an idea you came up with trump my natural right to free speech?
This is much more than your very limited example of reciting the words from Monty Python. Even so, what you quoted is simply not true. You do NOT have the inalienable right to "repeat [my] story/song/whatever" in front of a paying audience while that story/song/whatever is still protected by copyright. You can recite portions of same as long as it meets the fair use exemptions, but that's not what the claim was.
The Constitution, by granting Congress the authority to create and manage copyright, is explicitly contradicting the statement you made, because if they can limit it or take it away from you it is not an inalienable right. You have SOME rights to use PARTS of the story/song/whatever, but you do not have the inalienable right to repeat that work -- until the copyright expires and those rights do, indeed, become yours. And they do not become yours due to the first amendment, that is a red herring. They become yours because the copyright has expired.
Like I said, commercial speech has always been restricted, and claiming "right of free speech" doesn't change those limits. And no, the fact that there are some exceptions doesn't mean there are no limits.
Greasemonkey makes it trivial to deal with this. I've got a one line user script that resets my read count of 1 every time I access the two newspapers that use the same system.
document.cookie='xviewspaywall=1';
I'm now trying to add code to that to stop the Facebook and Twitter crap they've stuck on every page, but no joy yet. It should be simple, but it isn't, at least not obviously so.
But I do. I can totally repeat the entirety of the dialogue from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail from memory. And doing so is my inalienable right.
That is one very limited example of your use of that material. When one speaks in general terms, one is not limited to one specific example. The statement I replied to was a blanket statement.
And as I've already pointed out, the fact that copyright exists proves that your right is not inalienable. It is a limited right. You apparently recognize that when you refer to "protected speech". The fact that the Constitution itself contains limits on free speech shows that the founders did not consider all speech to be protected, and the "right to free speech" does, indeed, have limits. That they could take away certain parts of that right makes the right "alienable".
Fair use of a copyrighted work is not prevented solely due to the commercial nature of its use.
Pointing to one allowable example of commercial speech does not prove that there no limits to commercial speech, only that your example is not one of them. When the question is "what about my right to free speech", it is sufficient to point only to the limitations to that right to prove that there are limitations. The context of that question was regarding the use of someone else's characters in their own work -- a commercial use. In advertising, you are not allowed to refer to something as "new" after a certain length of time. You cannot make claims as to the efficacy of certain compounds for medical treatments without evidence to back it up. You can't slander or libel. All of these are limits to the question of "what about my right to free speech?", in general, and certainly when asked in a context regarding commercial speech.
As for your argument that such limits haven't always applied, well, they've applied for as long as is relevant to this discussion. It isn't relevant if the cave people didn't regulate what could be painted on the walls of their caves. Since the question revolves around the Constitution, then the fact that there is a specific example of allowable exemptions to "free speech" freedom within the Constitution itself merits the claim "always".
We can leave it to the Constitutional scholars, and SCOTUS, to decide when and if one part of the Constitution trumps another. Simply claiming that the First Amendment trumps another section isn't sufficient to prove such, given the history of the first ten Amendments.
Slashdot Mirror
We can observe natural selection happening in a matter of days with some bacteria in a petri dish - it's an extremely well established scientific theory. We know it happens.
Had you actually read the article linked to in the summary, you would have found that the discussion was about the use of the word "theory" instead of "fact" when referring to natural selection as the orgin of life. What you observe in your petri dish today proves nothing about what happened before there was anyone around to observe.
The article was about removing Natural Selection from the texts.
No, it wasn't. Quoting therefrom:
It wasn't about REMOVING anything from the texts, it was about using the word "theory" when talking about "natural selection" and the origin of life. The headline for this article was wrong.
Anyone who doesn't realize the animals (and corporations and products) are a result of adopting to their environments, is not going to fare well in any form.
And this kind of unfounded claim is what most folks would call "fearmongering" and hyperbole. Nothing was changed about teaching evolution other than s/fact/theory when referring to origins. If you think that means that the kids won't be taught about evolution and "adopting" [sic] you're wrong.
If they don't like what Obama is doing they could always impeach him for it,
Are you seriously suggesting that the criterion for impeaching a President be lowered from treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors all the way down to "don't like what he's doing"? Just askin'. Be careful what you ask for.
than the impeachment of Clinton over a reflexive lie about sex.
Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. As a lawyer, he knew he should not make "reflexive lies", whatever the subject was. If it was something he felt he needed to be lying about, why was he doing it?
Now, the smart way to allow that change would be the same way passwd works. Ask for the current PIN before changing things. But given the silly way ATMs are programmed it is better that complicated things like changing a PIN are left to the humans inside. (E.g., you cannot withdraw anything smaller than a $20 (or a $5) but the ATM wants you to enter the dollars AND CENTS for your withdrawal. Every time I put my card in the ATM it asks me for my language. It has my card, it knows my account number, it should be able to remember that simple detail.)
People don't walk away from machines that way? You've never had your card "eaten" by an ATM, I bet. I have. I've had to go inside the bank to get someone to fix the problem, and if someone walks up while I'm gone ...
Interesting argument, but not really true. Very few jobs require an understanding of evolution to earn a living.
It's not even that. Very few jobs require an ignorance of the views of the origin of life other than natural selection. I can't think of any, even biologist, that would put such a limit on such knowledge. In fact, being taught that there are other views is called, in many classes, tolerance.
If you read the article, you'll find that the problem is not "teaching evolution", it is teaching that evolution as the origin of life is a fact. Nothing was said about not teaching evolution, so assuming that the schools would produce students ignorant about it is just hyperbole and fearmongering. Cue the people who will pronounce that "evolution is not origin of life", but yes, that is how it is used, and that is the specific reference made in the article.
A school can do a much better job of turning out educated people if it is allowed to talk about all the ideas and show where each is lacking or preferred. Perhaps that is why there is such venom here whenever evolution is questioned? Many people haven't been taught where the theory isn't appropriately used and what other people actually believe? Like the poster who lept from the objection to teaching evolution as the origin of life as a fact (as in the article) to "people who believe the earth is 6000 years old".
A PIN is a Personal Identification Number. It identifies you, not the card. One person? Four cards? One PIN. See how easy that was?
A password is a Personally ASScociated WORD. It identifies you, not the computer. One person? Four accounts? One password. See how easy that was?
Actually, no. All debit transactions made through the typical POS systems in Europe are entirely reversible within something like a day or so. So the procedure is the same - you notice a problem,
I don't look at my online statements every day. By the time I notice a debit problem, the account will have been empty for on average two weeks, potentially an entire month. That's a significant problem when the checks written on that account start bouncing. Yeah, how nice, my account has been empty for two weeks but they'll maybe put it back within a day, if they decide that there was a problem.
I'll stick with the banks being stuck while the problem is resolved, thanks.
The only way you have a real problem is if someone steals your card and your PIN and manages to make an ATM withdrawal up to the maximum daily limit
Debit cards in the US are not limited to a "maximum daily limit" when you are making purchases with them. If I have $2000 in the account, $2000 can go out the door with one purchase.
before you notice
Even assuming the only debit card fraud is from ATM withdrawals, what makes you think most people would notice there is a problem before the statement comes out showing $0 balance? The $500 a day limit on my ATM withdrawals would mean a four day spree and the $2000 is gone. Ok, maybe the bank/credit union would send a notice when the first check bounced, but by that time the balance is 0 and the problem is real.
The FACT is that the "award" is Respect Your Freedom, not Respect Your Privacy, and it is because the system meets whatever criteria the OSF has for that award for open software.
This kind of hype makes me look askance at the company that produces it.
When you use it you choose whether you use it as a credit or a debit card. The level of risk for both is identical.
That's the party line of the credit unions who issue debit cards preferentially over credit cards. (Can they even do credit cards?)
The level of risk is not the same. There's one very very large significant difference.
THAT is a significant difference. While it may all work out the same after a long time, the loss of money for two months or so is a problem.
Here's a question for the chip and pin people: how do you make online purchases? Do you have to give them your pin? Or is there no difference in online buying? Since a lot of fraud comes from online buying, how does chip and pin solve the fraud problem?
No, I've never stated anything about web browsing.
I DID, and the statement of mine that you quoted did. You're telling me that statement is wrong, and now you prove you didn't bother reading it to start with.
Here, I'll repeat it yet again:
"Web browsing". "Priority over". "WOULD PROHIBIT". It says nothing about Netflix users being "the enemy", and it certainly does not say that net neutrality requires the streaming video services receive priority over other web services. It says exactly the opposite. "Would prohibit". Do you not know the difference between "prohibit" and "require"?
Nope. Netlfix isn't a *service*, it's a *company* that provides streaming video services.
The use of the company Netflix is a shorthand way of referring to "streaming web services." Had you bothered to read the discussion, you'd have noticed that the GP started by referring to "AWS", and then moved to the specific example of Netflix. Is that your problem? You can't generalize from a specific company into a broader context of services similar to what they provide? You're stuck because you think I said that net neutrality laws referred to Netflix specifically?
You can't throttle Netflix but have your video services run at full rate.
And you don't think my statement about "no preferences" applies to that situation?
If you knew them, and I was as wrong as you say I am, then why wouldn't you quote them to prove me wrong?
Because you are wrong by putting words in my mouth when you claim I am trying to argue against net neutrality or that I've said that net neutrality demands preference for streaming video services (aka Netflix) over other web uses. Quoting the net neutrality laws won't change your deliberate twists of my words, it will only encourage you because you'll think you convinced me that net neutrality doesn't require such preferences when I'VE NEVER SAID IT REQUIRES THEM, AND HAVE, IN FACT, SAID EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. "It would prohibit" such preferences.
hey I'm talking about Windows 7/8 here. In which ways do you think that MS designed it as a general programming environment for the end user? I see none.
I've had no problem installing programming languages on my Windows 7 systems. You're calling the hardware "not a computer" because the operating system doesn't come with GUI IDEs for your favorite language? Wow. Then VAXen aren't computers, either, despite their long history of computing, because VMS didn't come with a general purpose programming language for free.
By the time you make cygwin work on it, you could have installed Linux instead,
You know, the fact that many Linux distributions come with the -devel packages installed doesn't mean they all do. I've had to install my share of -devel this and that just so I could program on a Linux system. As I recall, I've even had to install a gcc or two to get C.
and that one comes with all the programming tools by default.
I'm glad that every distribution you use has all kinds of things that may not be required for the end user by default. Some distro authors are more restrained and want to serve their target audiences better.
That still leaves the fact that there are many many computers out in the world where end users aren't expected to program them and they don't have IDEs installed by default, if one is available at all.
Your opinion of what you think it should mean is unrelated to what's actually in the bills. Try reading them again (or, likely, for the first time) and quote a section that would make throttling P2P in congested conditions illegal.
Now you've converted web browsing into "P2P" to try to support your argument. Sir, if the law would prevent an ISP from throttling Netflix in preference to other web services, then it would prevent throttling other web services in preference to Netflix. Neutrality means "no preferences", not "well, it's ok because I want my Netflix and don't care about other people..."
You are pushing hate.
Bullshit. I simply pointed out that the people who want their Netflix movies in preference to other people's web browsing will be unhappy with any law that prevents them getting priority. Just like people who currently think other people's web browsing is getting priority over their Netflix are unhappy. The latter is the entire point of the original article! "Hey, someone is throttling my Netflix at home and it doesn't happen for my commercial account at work, and other things other people are doing aren't throttled, so I know it must be deliberate!"
So you took my offense at your wrong statements
Your twisted and ridiculous interpretations of what I said, you mean.
to mean that I must be the "enemy"
And here we go again. Show me where I called you "the enemy", or any Netflix user "the enemy". No, your decision to misread what I've said as an attack on net neutrality because it would prevent you getting priority for your Netflix in preference to other people's traffic shows me that you think your Netflix is a natural right and other people's network traffic isn't as important. Otherwise you'd accept that net neutrality would prevent your preferential treatment.
As you are speaking out against net neutrality
I am doing no such thing, and you need to stop trying to put words in my mouth. I pointed out that the sudden appearance of support for net neutrality that the GP claimed would happen if only it were presented to people in "the right way" was not likely to be unanimous. That's not "speaking out against net neutrality". It's a statement of human nature, which you've demonstrated is correct.
It's not about requiring that everything else be slowed to allow in Netflix.
I didn't say it was. In fact, I've said several times it means "NO PREFERENCE". How you can read "no preference" and think I said it means Netflix gets higher priority is beyond understanding. I was quite explicit in saying that people who would WANT Netflix prioritized over other people's traffic will be UNHAPPY that net neutrality would not ALLOW it. How you read that and wound up thinking I said the net neutrality would REQUIRE it is ... well, either stupidity or malice.
with a single provider you're likely not to get advanced features like multiple ips, ipv6, reverse dns etc
You may not get all that for free, but if there is a market for it they'll sell it. My last cable install, Charter would have happily sold me multiple static IP addresses, as would CenturyLink on DSL before that. They do "reverse DNS", it just doesn't necessarily resolve to what you want it to. These are cash cow services. Free money for them, pretty much. They'll move to IPv6 when necessary, and since you can get there from here there isn't a strong reason to do that.
Wow, you really have a middle-school social studies level of understanding how stuff works.
No, I have a direct understanding of how the local franchising authority has dealt with Comcast, what Comcast is paying, and where the money goes. I was on the cable advisory board for several years here, I met regularly with both the cable execs and city management. I was on the same kind of board in another city I lived in previously.
You better tell Comcast that they're wasting tons of money on those lobbyists because everything is fair and above-board and there's no need for them to dedicate so much money and effort to making it a non-free market.
Your statement is direct support for my claim that another company could enter the market. Why would Comcast bother spending money on lobbyists if nobody could compete with them anyway? The fact that you think they are trying to make the market less free means you also know that the market has some freedom to it. Completely free? Nobody said it was.
Here's a little story. Once there were two satellite radio companies.
Here's a little story. Comcast is not a satellite radio company. Comcast uses limited space on public rights of way to distribute their services, not a much more limited set of radio frequencies. That video signal that Comcast sends to the home on channel 2, e.g., doesn't mean that nobody else can use a similar distribution system to send their data into the home on channel 2. (And that is the problem with the idea of a government building the wires and letting companies use them. The signal Comcast sends to the home on Channel 2 on such a system DOES mean that another company cannot use the same channel. This is different than electric service/multiple providers because once the electrons are on the wire it doesn't matter where they came from.)
And remember, the point of this story is the lobbyists are writing the laws.
They have yet to write a law that prohibits any other company from getting a franchise agreement and trying to grab all the underserved potential customers that would apparently flock away from Comcast if only there were some competition. And yet, nobody has yet done that, at least not anywhere I've lived.
Yeah, they'd have to negotiate a franchise, and pay the same fees Comcast does for access to the rights of way. Boo hoo. What a death grip on the local market that is. And it's not even Comcast that really pays the franchise fee, it appears as a line item on every customer's bill, added right on top of all the other stuff.
The city would be happy for someone to come compete so that those who aren't paying franchise fees to the city could start doing that. (They even wanted to tack a franchise fee onto cell phone bills so they could grab more money out of our pockets, but saner heads prevailed.) Comcast would have nothing to say about it, they signed a non-exclusive agreement. All we need is a company that thinks they could make a profit from all the unserved people here, and those companies just don't exist.
At least for android, downloading the sdk and running your first app on a phone is a matter of less than an hour (up to bandwidth limitations).
And for the "PC" that Napalm claims isn't a computer because it doesn't come with a programming language, it takes even less time to install Perl or Python or ... and he's ignoring the batch file ability already there.
"A computer" has a certain set of properties, which do not include "spiffy GUI programming environment". Isn't it a shame when you young folks start thinking that something isn't a computer just because it lacks conveniences? In the new world of Things on the Internet many of our computers will lack much of any interaction with humans, and you won't be able to program a lot of it yourself. That's a good thing, IMNSHO, because it will keep total chaos from spewing.
No version of net neutrality mentioned or proposed in congress has ever had that restriction
Of course it would. Net neutrality means NO PREFERENCES. That means that the ISP would be PROHIBITED from giving Netflix priority over simple web browsing. "And, I dare say, you will still have a lot of people who disapprove of net neutrality if you tell them that it would prohibit their ISP from giving their Netflix stream priority over someone else's web browsing." How could an ISP that is obeying any net neutrality law get away with throttling web browsing in preference to Netflix?
But equitable slowing for the purpose of network integrity was allowed in every version of net neutrality proposed or discussed in congress (and every serious submission I've read outside it).
If you read the sentence I wrote and though I was talking about "equitable slowing" when I said "priority over", well, I don't know how to fix that. I can only assume that you are one of the people who wants their Netflix to work all the time, every time, even if it means other people get slowed down to give it to you. That's "equitable slowing", right? Your movie packets get through, theirs get queued and delayed.
I still don't understand how that lie has propagated
What, you mean that net neutrality means no preferential treatment, either by slowing Netflix in preference to "normal" web, or slowing other people's web browsing in preference to Netflix? Gosh, I don't know how that lie could have started. Maybe someone who actually read the FCC order?
So why are you pushing for people to hate net neutrality for something it's never done?
The fact that you asked that question proves that you did not comprehend what you read. I "pushed" for nothing. I pointed out that there will be people who whine if an ISP cannot throttle others so that your Netflix can get through, and you conveniently made yourself known. And I was pretty explicit in saying that net neutrality would NOT allow them to do that, and that people who want their Netflix at the expense of others will oppose net neutrality because they can't be special users and get priority handling if net neutrality is enforced.
And people who don't want to be customers of a private monopoly have to do without service at all.
Your choice. Why should your choice not to buy something mean I'm forced to give it to you using my money?
And for something which involves laying cable in the ground a monopoly is how it will always end up
No. Only stupid cities granted cable TV exclusive franchises, and so the problem you have is with YOUR ELECTED GOVERNMENT who were morons. I don't know of any, by the way. All the ones I've dealt with are non-exclusive. The limit to how many cable TV services can use one pole is not "1" as you seem to think. It isn't infinity, however, so there needs to be some limit, and there needs to be a limit so that everyone plays well together.
In fact, another company can come in, but they don't because the market isn't there. And the proof of that is the very government systems we're talking about here.
Were another company to agree to the franchise and build out, then you'd claim they were a monopoly and refuse to deal with them. How you would explain refusing to deal with two different companies who are both monopolies in the same business, I don't know.
The only real solution would be a non profit to operate the physical infrastructure,
That doesn't solve the problem. It only creates a fake market run at sub-market pricing. It creates another layer of management and finger pointing.
Yes, we've already seen it, and I expect it is still happening to this day. You may not be old enough to remember when "Ma Bell" was the telephone company and it did it all. Local, long distance, hardware, wires, the whole enchilada. When there was a problem with a service you called the Ma Bell repair line and they had to deal with it. Then came divestiture and MCI, Sprint, local Bell operating companies, AT&T, etc. You had a problem with your phone? Well, if it was local, you called one company. Long distance service not working right? Call someone else. Dollars to doughnuts you call the long distance company and they'll tell you it is a local service problem; call local service and they won't look at it because it is an LD problem. Life was simply wonderful. Not.
And you want that to happen for what you want to claim are essential services like phone. "My phone isn't working." "It's a wire problem, call the city." "It's a problem with the provider, call them." "It's a problem with your CPE, call yourself."
The way cities handled this in the past was granting a single company a monopoly on providing a certain service.
Every cable TV franchise I've ever dealt with has been non-exclusive. That means no, it isn't a monopoly. And today, I can get the same (Internet) service from at least three companies in town, using three different delivery mechanisms. That pretty much proves that there is no monopoly on Internet service provided to anyone. Wait -- if I want satellite latency, four different delivery mechanisms from at least four different companies.
At the point you realize that the monopoly isn't, the rest of the argument for government competition with private sector falls apart.
The solution to this problem is for the city to own a fiber network and any company that wants to provide IP services (TV, phone, internet) over this network is free to do so.
The solution to the problem is to accept that a market has limits and that you won't always get everything you want from other people, you might have to pay for it yourself. Like the fellow in an adjoining comment who seems to think that the government should be giving him his cable TV and sports packages instead of paying $135 a month for it himself. Here's a clue to that guy: the cost of sports packages is primarily in the licensing of content. NFL/NHL/NCAA/etc don't hand out their programming for free. It's not the greedy cable company, it's the greedy sports teams/management/monopoly that you want to support by watching that's costing you the most bit of that money. (Oh, basic is expensive too, right? ESPN ad nauseum are not free, either.)
If you can't beat them, legislate them.
No private company can compete with a government operated one. People who don't want to be customers of the private company because they charge too much, or don't provide good enough service, or for whatever reason, don't have to pay anything. People who don't want to be customers of the government-run company wind up with the Sheriff tacking a note on their door telling them when the tax sale of that door, and the building it is attached to, will take place.
And that's bad because...?
The fact you ask that means you probably won't accept the answer, but here goes ...
Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.
If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.
Tell you what: As long as the entities that own these "private" networks ...
Yes, I understand. Free markets only for those who do things the way you want them done. Otherwise the government must solve the problem by competing with them.
and as long as they stop asking for special tax dispensations,
In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.
Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has. If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.
That's why it is bad.
That denial of service attack must be delivered with the same priority as the tele-medicine feed, the way one bill was drafted.
Not quite that bad, if you assume that the DOS is not a legal use, but almost. FCC 10-201 says "No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices;", so while the unlawful DOS can be blocked, any blocking based on an RBL would be illegal under this rule. And this rule is the existing FCC rule that was overturned by the courts but a recent bill was submitted to re-enact it.
If you inform them that Net Neutrality is against throttling speeds,
Except that isn't what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality has nothing to do with residential and business accounts getting different data rates (which is the complaint in the original article.) It isn't about residential users seeing congestion because there are too many other users on their net segment. One hundred people on your net segment all browsing media-rich websites while you're trying to watch a movie on Netflix and your movie stalls isn't a violation of net neutrality. And it isn't even about the throttling of speeds when you overrun the limits on your data plan.
It IS about preferential treatment for certain data SOURCES. And this is going to be something that is hard for a user to prove since it will take more than "netflix sux but youtube still rocks", or "netflix at home sux but netflix at work rocks". And it will take a LOT more than some undocumented alleged rambling from a front-line tech support person.
And, I dare say, you will still have a lot of people who disapprove of net neutrality if you tell them that it would prohibit their ISP from giving their Netflix stream priority over someone else's web browsing. "So what if it takes five seconds for their web page to load instead of one, if them getting it in one means my Netflix hiccups?" (Perhaps this displays why using Netflix as the quintessential argument FOR net neutrality is a poor idea, since it is easy to dismiss it as just selfish people who want their movies to run without interruption even if it means everyone else's network experience suffers.)
or enable a free market, where we have more than one or two choices for broadband (or any other utility).... If we had 10+ ISP's to choose from, this wouldn't be an issue,
Well, unfortunately, we've already seen that a totally free market won't result in 10+ ISPs because there won't be enough money to keep all of them in business. Even back in the heyday of dialup ISPs our area only had three or four at best (not counting the AOLs of the world, which I wouldn't call a real ISP anyway), and they tanked because they couldn't keep customers when faster access came around. Heck, some parts of this state had NO ISPs until the state stepped in and provided it as a kind of "extension service". The one local ISP that survived the transition resells DSL for the local telco, so even that "competition" isn't really competition.
No, to get those 10+ ISPs there will have to be heavy subsidies, and that creates something very different than a free market.
This is much more than your very limited example of reciting the words from Monty Python. Even so, what you quoted is simply not true. You do NOT have the inalienable right to "repeat [my] story/song/whatever" in front of a paying audience while that story/song/whatever is still protected by copyright. You can recite portions of same as long as it meets the fair use exemptions, but that's not what the claim was.
The Constitution, by granting Congress the authority to create and manage copyright, is explicitly contradicting the statement you made, because if they can limit it or take it away from you it is not an inalienable right. You have SOME rights to use PARTS of the story/song/whatever, but you do not have the inalienable right to repeat that work -- until the copyright expires and those rights do, indeed, become yours. And they do not become yours due to the first amendment, that is a red herring. They become yours because the copyright has expired.
Like I said, commercial speech has always been restricted, and claiming "right of free speech" doesn't change those limits. And no, the fact that there are some exceptions doesn't mean there are no limits.
I'm now trying to add code to that to stop the Facebook and Twitter crap they've stuck on every page, but no joy yet. It should be simple, but it isn't, at least not obviously so.
But I do. I can totally repeat the entirety of the dialogue from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail from memory. And doing so is my inalienable right.
That is one very limited example of your use of that material. When one speaks in general terms, one is not limited to one specific example. The statement I replied to was a blanket statement.
And as I've already pointed out, the fact that copyright exists proves that your right is not inalienable. It is a limited right. You apparently recognize that when you refer to "protected speech". The fact that the Constitution itself contains limits on free speech shows that the founders did not consider all speech to be protected, and the "right to free speech" does, indeed, have limits. That they could take away certain parts of that right makes the right "alienable".
Fair use of a copyrighted work is not prevented solely due to the commercial nature of its use.
Pointing to one allowable example of commercial speech does not prove that there no limits to commercial speech, only that your example is not one of them. When the question is "what about my right to free speech", it is sufficient to point only to the limitations to that right to prove that there are limitations. The context of that question was regarding the use of someone else's characters in their own work -- a commercial use. In advertising, you are not allowed to refer to something as "new" after a certain length of time. You cannot make claims as to the efficacy of certain compounds for medical treatments without evidence to back it up. You can't slander or libel. All of these are limits to the question of "what about my right to free speech?", in general, and certainly when asked in a context regarding commercial speech.
As for your argument that such limits haven't always applied, well, they've applied for as long as is relevant to this discussion. It isn't relevant if the cave people didn't regulate what could be painted on the walls of their caves. Since the question revolves around the Constitution, then the fact that there is a specific example of allowable exemptions to "free speech" freedom within the Constitution itself merits the claim "always".
We can leave it to the Constitutional scholars, and SCOTUS, to decide when and if one part of the Constitution trumps another. Simply claiming that the First Amendment trumps another section isn't sufficient to prove such, given the history of the first ten Amendments.