Possession of strong crypto is ensured HOW by the right of the people to freely assemble? That's the only thing called a "right" in the First Amendment. Of course, if you want to say it is a violation of the First Amendment (In that it is Congress making a law infringing on something it shouldn't be infringing upon) that's a different story. However, it would make more sense to say it is an infringement on Fourth Amendment rights. Unfortunately, from Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, apparently the phrase "the right of the people" doesn't ensure individual rights, only group rights. So even "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is something that you, as an individual, aren't entitled to, if Second Amendment rulings were taken to their logical conclusion. The Constitution is looking mighty impotent in the face of judicial activism, isn't it?
As long as you recognize that the First Amendment does not protect MS from anything the States wish to do to it, that the protection is SOLELY from the Congress, which consists of a House of Representitives and a Senate, that in neither the First nor the Fourteenth amendment does the wording exist to broaden the scope of such protection, only in court opinions, which have no authority over law by both Articles I and III, are references made to such a broadening, just to make sure this is all absolutely clear, then fine, carry on. Just whenever I see the First Amendment getting tossed around I get nervous as often those people who like to play with it haven't given it a critical read. It's similar to people who say "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment does not confir individual rights, forgetting that the exact same phrase is used in the Fourth to grant the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. (So if you support gun bans, don't whine about the Patriot Act being unconstitutional) The Consititution is one of those strange documents that is all too often invoked and ignored simultaneously, much like the Bible.
Really, the First Amendment applies to MS? I coulda sworn it only applied to Congress... you know, "Congress shall make no law", Congress, the word that's specifically defined in Article 1 of the Constitution.
People, please READ the fricken Constitution, don't go by the neat little soundbytes you hear in passing.
So, in other words, he should go to Times Square and pass out a truck load of pirated merchandise for free, preferably stuff that is 20 years old yet still under copyright if he just doesn't like the constant increase in copyright length.
Yes, I remember the good 'ol days when there was no technology in a car. No ABS, no automatic transmition, no radio, no power windows, no catalytic converter, no aluminum frames, no steel, no glass, no engine, no tires, no wheels. Those were great cars, and safe too. Not a single accident involving one. Not like today, where every part of a car is dripping with technology. Damn you Henry Ford and Karl Benz!
Uh, I'm not defending DOS attacks, where are you getting that from? I'm attacking the premise that it is OK to cut off an entire group simply because one or two may be doing something you don't agree with. Apparently they didn't die so that people could read either.
The "house" is my computer, which I do indeed own. The ISP provides the road, and finding out about who the ISP won't allow on the roads can be like pulling teeth.
Well, unless you had someone reading this out loud to you, I'm not to blame for you not going 24 hours without hearing 9/11. You know, if I had a history of bringing 9/11 into every conversation, I could see it being reasonable to complain. As it is, this is the first time I've even mentioned 9/11 on Slashdot, so a happy "screw you" to you sir.
One day I'll go a full 24 hours without seeing the word "fuck".
No, you're incorrect. If I go through an ISP that is using SPEWS to block e-mails, I do not have the option to 'let someone in' from the SPEWS list if I want to. So your analogy doesn't work. The Slum/City one is better.
To use the common analogy, you live in a filthy crimeridden slum. Trying to send e-mail to my server is equivalent to calling and trying to have a pizza delivered to your house.
No, it's the equivalent of trying to go from the slum to the downtown area. With your analogy, the city has walled off the slum. Those who live in the slum and want to go into the city have to move out of the slum first. I wonder how well that policy would go down outside the digital realm. Besides, if I recall, the government seems to think that you do have the right to buy a pizza and have it delivered provided you're within a reasonable distance of the establishment that delivers even if you happen to live in a crime infested slum.
Well, the problem with this is it's starting to hit the fan. As more people realize that they can't recieve the confirmation e-mail from the site I regestered to because SPEWS has blocked it, they'll look for a provider that does not use SPEWS. So, the boycotters become the boycotted.
So yes, let's block the entire nation of Brazil. Those people in Brazil who want websites will just have to use another ISP... you know, the one that doesn't exist. Hell, if they don't want to support the spammers they should all move to another country! Plus, it's not like ISPs have vastly different capabilities. It should be increadibly easy for sites that upload terabytes of information to find another ISP that blocks spammers the nano-second they are informed. Also, those same sites obviously have no long term contracts with their ISP, so their shouldn't be any severe monetary, let alone logistical or legal, penalties for them to switch.
It seems to me that, in fact, it is YOU who just doesn't get it. Not to put this on the same level or anything, but the exact same attitude was used to justify 9/11.
"you've committed to a relationship for the time being"
Well, you sure know how to give yourself a loophole you could drive a truck through. Maybe I'm old fasioned, but if you commit to a relationship it's a lot more definate than "for the time being". I wonder what would happen if buisnesses used that philosophy when dealing with long-term contracts...
Uh, no, it's my ability to READ that makes me come out of the woodwork. I gladly fight laws that infringe on freedom of speech all the time, but I have no RIGHT to freedom of speech unless my State has a clause in its Constitution that assures it. It's not there. Congress is defined in Article I as comprising a Senate and House of Representatives. Congress has been give power under Article I to pass all laws. "Congress shall make no law" is therefore in absolute terms. I'm not saying this because I really want to be able to shut up the spammers (national anti-spam regulation and the Do Not Call list is clearly against the First Amendment as writen, BTW.) I'm doing this because I want the law comprehensable, consistant and within reach of the common man. If the courts can go and through "common law" (again, if it ain't made in the legislature, under the Constitution, it ain't law) change the meaning of the document, then the Constitution itself is completely worthless and you can only protect your rights by hireing high priced lawyers, and even THEN you aren't assured as the courts like to ignore the Constitution when it comes to, say, the Ten Commandments being displayed in a court house (and no, I'm not refering to former justice Roy Moore).
Now, the questions is how long before I am moderated Off Topic or a Troll? Sorry, I get worked up about this stuff. I saw my opening and I took it.
I saw a quote in the Wired article where one of the experts they interviewed said the way to tell a manufactured diamond from a natural diamond is to look for flaws; if it has them, it's natural. So you're correct!
Doesn't matter. The 14th amendment only extends rights granted in the Constitution. Since the First Amendment grants no rights, but is a direction on how Congress operates, it isn't (under the way the law is writen) extended. If it was extended, then under that logic individual States should also be required to have a House of Representitives and a Senate. Under how it is interprited (or, better word, AMENDED) by the judicial system is another matter, but of course, under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial system has no such authority to do so, but that doesn't stop it.
Our speech never was free. The First Amendment was a directive to Congress not to pass laws abridging it ("Congress shall make no law..."), but the States were left unaffected for good reason (Death threats, slander and liable, yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater... alright, so the writers of the Bill of Rights didn't have to contend with that one). When someone says "First Amendment rights" it just proves they've never read the First Amendment. Ditto with separation of church and State; doesn't exist in the writen Constitution.
Oh, I know Wired had an article on manufactured diamonds (they aren't fake). Of course, natural dimonds are fairly common already. The diamond industry just doesn't want you to know about that.
Dude, the Enron scams, World Com, it ALL happened on Clinton's watch. It was after Bush came into office that it hit the fan.
And, uh, what did Bush lie about in the State of the Union? Are you telling me the British did not have information that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Africa? I'd think the British would be very interested to hear that. Did Bush lie when, in the State of the Union, he specifically said that Iraq was not an imminent threat?
Geneva convention violations? Under the Geneva conventions, because none of the detainees were wearing uniforms, they could have been executed on the spot. Sorry we decided to lock them up indefinately instead.
No terrorists as "friends"? What the hell do you think was going on in North Korea?
Broken treaties? Sorry, we have no control over France refusing to help defend Turkey under the NATO charter. The funny thing is Korea was breaking a lot of treaties with the US while Clinton was in office, so obviously there were plenty of broken treaties under Clinton.
Lies about WMDs? Considering the bulk of Bush's information was from 1998 and Bush made the same claims as Clinton, it would be safe to conclude that if there were no lies about WMDs under Clinton, there were no lies about WMDs under Bush.
Oh, and pretty much every Republican in office is married and has children. Plus there's Viagra, and Bob Dole apparently has a good time with that stuff.
Except nowhere in the benchmarks do you hear a peep about the hardware rendering capabilities of either card. In the one benchmark I found that covered it the ATI absolutely CREAMED the Quadro FX, and that's where you can see massive $$$ savings.
As long as that legislation is at the State level only, sure, otherwise it's not permitted under the Constitution.
What part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" do people not understand? If your State wishes to pass anti-spam legislation, that's one thing as the 1st Amendment doesn't shackle the states in anyway whatsoever specifically for such purposes. But national anti-spam legislation and the whole "Do Not Call" list are just plain unconstitutional, no matter how much I hate spam and telemarketing. And no, the 14th amendment does NOT extend the 1st amendment to the States, as the 1st amendment doesn't grant anyone any right such as the 4th Amendment grants the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The 14th starts off "The right of the people to be..." rather than "Congress shall..." as in the 1st. The 1st amendment's only purpose is to directly limit Congress's power.
Because no one likes spammers it's okay to ignore the Constitution apparently. That's fine, it's nothing new. Our Constitution has been being ignored for a long time now. It's sole purpose now is just to give our government the appearance of propriety while the federal government (particularly the judicial branch) does whatever the hell it wants. Just remember, one day, it WILL bite you in the ass.
One person hurting another isn't funny no matter the person, setting, gender, age or ethnic group.
The Three Stooges disproved that statement long ago. And if it's not okay for people to be hurt if they do something wrong, go complain to the designer of our nervous system, as that's one of the functions of pain.
Slashdot Mirror
Possession of strong crypto is ensured HOW by the right of the people to freely assemble? That's the only thing called a "right" in the First Amendment. Of course, if you want to say it is a violation of the First Amendment (In that it is Congress making a law infringing on something it shouldn't be infringing upon) that's a different story. However, it would make more sense to say it is an infringement on Fourth Amendment rights. Unfortunately, from Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, apparently the phrase "the right of the people" doesn't ensure individual rights, only group rights. So even "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is something that you, as an individual, aren't entitled to, if Second Amendment rulings were taken to their logical conclusion. The Constitution is looking mighty impotent in the face of judicial activism, isn't it?
I thought the problem in Florida was that they voted too right and wound up supporting Buchanan?
As long as you recognize that the First Amendment does not protect MS from anything the States wish to do to it, that the protection is SOLELY from the Congress, which consists of a House of Representitives and a Senate, that in neither the First nor the Fourteenth amendment does the wording exist to broaden the scope of such protection, only in court opinions, which have no authority over law by both Articles I and III, are references made to such a broadening, just to make sure this is all absolutely clear, then fine, carry on. Just whenever I see the First Amendment getting tossed around I get nervous as often those people who like to play with it haven't given it a critical read. It's similar to people who say "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment does not confir individual rights, forgetting that the exact same phrase is used in the Fourth to grant the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. (So if you support gun bans, don't whine about the Patriot Act being unconstitutional) The Consititution is one of those strange documents that is all too often invoked and ignored simultaneously, much like the Bible.
Really, the First Amendment applies to MS? I coulda sworn it only applied to Congress... you know, "Congress shall make no law", Congress, the word that's specifically defined in Article 1 of the Constitution.
People, please READ the fricken Constitution, don't go by the neat little soundbytes you hear in passing.
What does "Congress shall make no law" have to do with Linux? Seems like you're one of the kids who needs to be taught about the First Amendment.
What? You mean Windows is not synonomous with OS?
So, in other words, he should go to Times Square and pass out a truck load of pirated merchandise for free, preferably stuff that is 20 years old yet still under copyright if he just doesn't like the constant increase in copyright length.
More technology in a car?
Yes, I remember the good 'ol days when there was no technology in a car. No ABS, no automatic transmition, no radio, no power windows, no catalytic converter, no aluminum frames, no steel, no glass, no engine, no tires, no wheels. Those were great cars, and safe too. Not a single accident involving one. Not like today, where every part of a car is dripping with technology. Damn you Henry Ford and Karl Benz!
Uh, I'm not defending DOS attacks, where are you getting that from? I'm attacking the premise that it is OK to cut off an entire group simply because one or two may be doing something you don't agree with. Apparently they didn't die so that people could read either.
The "house" is my computer, which I do indeed own. The ISP provides the road, and finding out about who the ISP won't allow on the roads can be like pulling teeth.
Well, unless you had someone reading this out loud to you, I'm not to blame for you not going 24 hours without hearing 9/11. You know, if I had a history of bringing 9/11 into every conversation, I could see it being reasonable to complain. As it is, this is the first time I've even mentioned 9/11 on Slashdot, so a happy "screw you" to you sir.
One day I'll go a full 24 hours without seeing the word "fuck".
No, you're incorrect. If I go through an ISP that is using SPEWS to block e-mails, I do not have the option to 'let someone in' from the SPEWS list if I want to. So your analogy doesn't work. The Slum/City one is better.
To use the common analogy, you live in a filthy crimeridden slum. Trying to send e-mail to my server is equivalent to calling and trying to have a pizza delivered to your house.
No, it's the equivalent of trying to go from the slum to the downtown area. With your analogy, the city has walled off the slum. Those who live in the slum and want to go into the city have to move out of the slum first. I wonder how well that policy would go down outside the digital realm. Besides, if I recall, the government seems to think that you do have the right to buy a pizza and have it delivered provided you're within a reasonable distance of the establishment that delivers even if you happen to live in a crime infested slum.
Well, the problem with this is it's starting to hit the fan. As more people realize that they can't recieve the confirmation e-mail from the site I regestered to because SPEWS has blocked it, they'll look for a provider that does not use SPEWS. So, the boycotters become the boycotted.
So yes, let's block the entire nation of Brazil. Those people in Brazil who want websites will just have to use another ISP... you know, the one that doesn't exist. Hell, if they don't want to support the spammers they should all move to another country! Plus, it's not like ISPs have vastly different capabilities. It should be increadibly easy for sites that upload terabytes of information to find another ISP that blocks spammers the nano-second they are informed. Also, those same sites obviously have no long term contracts with their ISP, so their shouldn't be any severe monetary, let alone logistical or legal, penalties for them to switch.
It seems to me that, in fact, it is YOU who just doesn't get it. Not to put this on the same level or anything, but the exact same attitude was used to justify 9/11.
Since when have corporations not ignored the will of the people?
"you've committed to a relationship for the time being"
Well, you sure know how to give yourself a loophole you could drive a truck through. Maybe I'm old fasioned, but if you commit to a relationship it's a lot more definate than "for the time being". I wonder what would happen if buisnesses used that philosophy when dealing with long-term contracts...
Uh, no, it's my ability to READ that makes me come out of the woodwork. I gladly fight laws that infringe on freedom of speech all the time, but I have no RIGHT to freedom of speech unless my State has a clause in its Constitution that assures it. It's not there. Congress is defined in Article I as comprising a Senate and House of Representatives. Congress has been give power under Article I to pass all laws. "Congress shall make no law" is therefore in absolute terms. I'm not saying this because I really want to be able to shut up the spammers (national anti-spam regulation and the Do Not Call list is clearly against the First Amendment as writen, BTW.) I'm doing this because I want the law comprehensable, consistant and within reach of the common man. If the courts can go and through "common law" (again, if it ain't made in the legislature, under the Constitution, it ain't law) change the meaning of the document, then the Constitution itself is completely worthless and you can only protect your rights by hireing high priced lawyers, and even THEN you aren't assured as the courts like to ignore the Constitution when it comes to, say, the Ten Commandments being displayed in a court house (and no, I'm not refering to former justice Roy Moore).
Now, the questions is how long before I am moderated Off Topic or a Troll? Sorry, I get worked up about this stuff. I saw my opening and I took it.
I saw a quote in the Wired article where one of the experts they interviewed said the way to tell a manufactured diamond from a natural diamond is to look for flaws; if it has them, it's natural. So you're correct!
Doesn't matter. The 14th amendment only extends rights granted in the Constitution. Since the First Amendment grants no rights, but is a direction on how Congress operates, it isn't (under the way the law is writen) extended. If it was extended, then under that logic individual States should also be required to have a House of Representitives and a Senate. Under how it is interprited (or, better word, AMENDED) by the judicial system is another matter, but of course, under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial system has no such authority to do so, but that doesn't stop it.
Our speech never was free. The First Amendment was a directive to Congress not to pass laws abridging it ("Congress shall make no law..."), but the States were left unaffected for good reason (Death threats, slander and liable, yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater... alright, so the writers of the Bill of Rights didn't have to contend with that one). When someone says "First Amendment rights" it just proves they've never read the First Amendment. Ditto with separation of church and State; doesn't exist in the writen Constitution. Oh, I know Wired had an article on manufactured diamonds (they aren't fake). Of course, natural dimonds are fairly common already. The diamond industry just doesn't want you to know about that.
Dude, the Enron scams, World Com, it ALL happened on Clinton's watch. It was after Bush came into office that it hit the fan. And, uh, what did Bush lie about in the State of the Union? Are you telling me the British did not have information that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Africa? I'd think the British would be very interested to hear that. Did Bush lie when, in the State of the Union, he specifically said that Iraq was not an imminent threat? Geneva convention violations? Under the Geneva conventions, because none of the detainees were wearing uniforms, they could have been executed on the spot. Sorry we decided to lock them up indefinately instead. No terrorists as "friends"? What the hell do you think was going on in North Korea? Broken treaties? Sorry, we have no control over France refusing to help defend Turkey under the NATO charter. The funny thing is Korea was breaking a lot of treaties with the US while Clinton was in office, so obviously there were plenty of broken treaties under Clinton. Lies about WMDs? Considering the bulk of Bush's information was from 1998 and Bush made the same claims as Clinton, it would be safe to conclude that if there were no lies about WMDs under Clinton, there were no lies about WMDs under Bush. Oh, and pretty much every Republican in office is married and has children. Plus there's Viagra, and Bob Dole apparently has a good time with that stuff.
Except nowhere in the benchmarks do you hear a peep about the hardware rendering capabilities of either card. In the one benchmark I found that covered it the ATI absolutely CREAMED the Quadro FX, and that's where you can see massive $$$ savings.
As long as that legislation is at the State level only, sure, otherwise it's not permitted under the Constitution. What part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" do people not understand? If your State wishes to pass anti-spam legislation, that's one thing as the 1st Amendment doesn't shackle the states in anyway whatsoever specifically for such purposes. But national anti-spam legislation and the whole "Do Not Call" list are just plain unconstitutional, no matter how much I hate spam and telemarketing. And no, the 14th amendment does NOT extend the 1st amendment to the States, as the 1st amendment doesn't grant anyone any right such as the 4th Amendment grants the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The 14th starts off "The right of the people to be..." rather than "Congress shall..." as in the 1st. The 1st amendment's only purpose is to directly limit Congress's power. Because no one likes spammers it's okay to ignore the Constitution apparently. That's fine, it's nothing new. Our Constitution has been being ignored for a long time now. It's sole purpose now is just to give our government the appearance of propriety while the federal government (particularly the judicial branch) does whatever the hell it wants. Just remember, one day, it WILL bite you in the ass.
One person hurting another isn't funny no matter the person, setting, gender, age or ethnic group.
The Three Stooges disproved that statement long ago. And if it's not okay for people to be hurt if they do something wrong, go complain to the designer of our nervous system, as that's one of the functions of pain.