Bottom line is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only grant rights to individuals; not to corporations.
And later...
There are a number of cases (liquor and tobacco advertising come to mind) in which the "speech" of corporations is highly regulated in a manner that would not be tolerated if it were applied to an individual.
The distinction is more between commercial versus non-commercial rather than individual versus corporation. E.g., an individual engaged in any heavily regulated industry (like drugs, food, tobacco, alcohol) is similarly regulated as the corporation.
The individual cannot advertise their microbrew hootch in all locals/venues. The individual cannot claim their apples are "organic" (a descriptor... just a word) even if they are technically "organic" (carbon compound) unless they are also legally organic (maze of silly regulations). Nor can the individual claim their miracle potion is a cure for cancer if - in fact - it is not.
I think you eventually come to the same/similar conclusion:
Ergo, commercial speech is not protected to anywhere near the extent that individual speech is protected (again, as Nike found out). To me, this means commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech; sort of protected under certain circumstances and at a lawmaker's, regulator's and/or judge's discretion doesn't cut it.
IMO, commercial speech is one of those areas where the supreme court has collectively brain-farted. The restrictions would not be so readily swallowed in - e.g., - print newspapers.
2) The California law would probably be difficult to enforce against unsolicited, non-commercial (e.g., political, religeous, charitable, etc.) e-mail for the same reason. These are generally protected speech. I would be very surprised if they didn't allow this loophole.
Again, it will depend. Even the exceptions are still regulated with respect to suitable calling hours, misrepresentation, et cetera.
In these cases, it is not as simple as a pamphlet. With e-mail and phone calls you use (and sometimes abuse) someone else's resources to deliver a message. In a sense, that message is the "freedom of speech" part and the means of transmission (spam, commercial, billboard, mail) is where the battlelines get most often drawn.
If not already mentioned, calorie restriction aka CR is the best route for long-lived mice. Visit The CR Society where they are all about calorie restriction all the time.
They mail you the same way you send fan mail to a star with a notorious name. I.e., they can use your name for the purpose of addressing which is different from claiming to actually be you. Proper use of a trademark - even if you are not the trademark holder - is possible so long as you avoid misrepresentation.
Yep, nothing is free. But if a "free beer" solution were needed, I'd prefer a satellite with an unscrambled digital broadcast. It could fit hundreds of channels - enough to cover the basics - and the equipment to access it would be inexpensive. Sure old TV-tuners would become obselete (except for that critical channel 3,4 thing) but it would require minimal repeat investment over time. It could even be advertiser or donor supported like the current model.
Even better, the freed up spectrum could be completely unregulated allowing for two things:
1. Stations could continue to broadcast (though not free from interference necessarily). 2. The rest of us can build whatever wireless gizmos we want.
"It is a fact, as found by a US court, that Microsoft...
The point of freedom is speech is that the government does not by fiat, court or any other means determine facts as regards the truth. I.e., you are free to disagree.
"Fast forward to today. What a sad situation when a once brash young upstart--one that totally owes its successful existence to PC users past and present--turns into the "enemy" and betrays its customers by angling to control what people can do with the machines they own."
Is history repeating itself really such a "sad situation"? As opposed to expected...
My point: MSFT might be the barrier ingenious titans must cross to get to the next "big thing" - whatever that is.
So here is a little thinking question...if it is simply 100% OK to admit gays into the military (and leave them in when they are discovered), is it OK to house men and women soldiers together in the same rooms? Make them use the same showers? Make them roomies?
It worked great in Starship Troopers. Did you see the way that horny bunch kicked bug ass?
Why the FUD? Linux does not have support by default (unless your distro does). BFD. People that want it will get it and if it remains a small % for a long time, again, BFD.
Think back to the days when 95% didn't have a computer and 5% toyed around with slow-ass modems on Compuserver or something. It didn't matter then what 95% did and it sure as hell doesn't matter _much_ now. Get over it.
This link has more context. To clarify, I don't want to be in the position of defending this site. However, if anyone thinks Consumer Reports is above criticism, then think again. No ads does not equal objectivity. It is their spin, the line they use - like "Hey babe, I'm a doctor". BFD.
By the way, I just did three series of XP patches last night and each required a reboot (critical, drivers, then some misc crap). So Windows 9X ---> damn near all Windows!? "She thought that it meant that her brother had accessed porn on the computer and it was warning her that it was illegal." Maybe she knew something else... dang kids!
Circular thinking. Find the golden tool required to reduce (dramatically) the time and expense to "debug it, redesign it, retest it, certify it, and release it". If you think it can be done, then you may not be the person to do it. I'm not either but problems should be seen as opportunities. How do I open all these cans quickly...
"Because software needs to be thoroughly tested before it can be called reliable. "Cutting edge" software tends to be poorly (relativly speaking) tested, since it hasn't had that much time in the real world."
This is circular. You nearly imply "cutting edge" is not reliable by default. This is a mistake. If there is a market demand for reliability on the consumer level, then it may need a cutting edge solution: New diagnostics or testing mechanisms. Perhaps OSS is that cutting-edge methodology and it simply has not caught on everywhere.
The typical windows 9x users believes that a restart is the natural second step to every click or change they make.
Restart is the natural second step to many installation changes if you are running Windows 9x. Do you imply users should be faulted ("non-geek users are completely ignorant") for correctly identifing this? "I knew a girl...", now I *KNOW* you are lying. : )
"Isn't the trend towards "flashy products" rather than reliable ones the same reason why current marketing pushes sex rather than product qualities (Pepsi, A&F, etc), movies flaunt big-name actors and actresses, and people won't go see a movie unless it has a high PG-13 or R rating (PG? It's got to be boring)."
If a movie advertises itself as being raunchy, edgy, in-your-face, full of T&A, and is rated as PG-13 or even PG then hell yeah don't go! PG doesn't have to be boring, but if it is a PG movie then I expect a PG preview. The other unfortunate is that knowing the rating is - in a sense - like a spoiler. Viewers know where the line is drawn and that can limit suspense - the possibility to be intelligently taken off guard.
"What's society coming?"
Exponential increases in the bitch and moan department?
How come these articles fail to mention the government's seizure and theft of the electo-magnetic spectrum? It is no coincidence that the internet is their big "threat". They grew accustom to restricted access channels.
Slashdot Mirror
Bottom line is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only grant rights to individuals; not to corporations.
...
And later
There are a number of cases (liquor and tobacco advertising come to mind) in which the "speech" of corporations is highly regulated in a manner that would not be tolerated if it were applied to an individual.
The distinction is more between commercial versus non-commercial rather than individual versus corporation. E.g., an individual engaged in any heavily regulated industry (like drugs, food, tobacco, alcohol) is similarly regulated as the corporation.
The individual cannot advertise their microbrew hootch in all locals/venues. The individual cannot claim their apples are "organic" (a descriptor... just a word) even if they are technically "organic" (carbon compound) unless they are also legally organic (maze of silly regulations). Nor can the individual claim their miracle potion is a cure for cancer if - in fact - it is not.
I think you eventually come to the same/similar conclusion:
Ergo, commercial speech is not protected to anywhere near the extent that individual speech is protected (again, as Nike found out). To me, this means commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech; sort of protected under certain circumstances and at a lawmaker's, regulator's and/or judge's discretion doesn't cut it.
IMO, commercial speech is one of those areas where the supreme court has collectively brain-farted. The restrictions would not be so readily swallowed in - e.g., - print newspapers.
1) Commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech as Nike just recently found out.
False. It is protected in a different manner.
some links.
2) The California law would probably be difficult to enforce against unsolicited, non-commercial (e.g., political, religeous, charitable, etc.) e-mail for the same reason. These are generally protected speech. I would be very surprised if they didn't allow this loophole.
Again, it will depend. Even the exceptions are still regulated with respect to suitable calling hours, misrepresentation, et cetera.
In these cases, it is not as simple as a pamphlet. With e-mail and phone calls you use (and sometimes abuse) someone else's resources to deliver a message. In a sense, that message is the "freedom of speech" part and the means of transmission (spam, commercial, billboard, mail) is where the battlelines get most often drawn.
OK. Now what is to stop internal saboteurs spamming a company list. "Don't blame me, I'm just a temp...".
If not already mentioned, calorie restriction aka CR is the best route for long-lived mice. Visit The CR Society where they are all about calorie restriction all the time.
They mail you the same way you send fan mail to a star with a notorious name. I.e., they can use your name for the purpose of addressing which is different from claiming to actually be you. Proper use of a trademark - even if you are not the trademark holder - is possible so long as you avoid misrepresentation.
Yep, nothing is free. But if a "free beer" solution were needed, I'd prefer a satellite with an unscrambled digital broadcast. It could fit hundreds of channels - enough to cover the basics - and the equipment to access it would be inexpensive. Sure old TV-tuners would become obselete (except for that critical channel 3,4 thing) but it would require minimal repeat investment over time. It could even be advertiser or donor supported like the current model.
Even better, the freed up spectrum could be completely unregulated allowing for two things:
1. Stations could continue to broadcast (though not free from interference necessarily).
2. The rest of us can build whatever wireless gizmos we want.
Yip E.
"It is a fact, as found by a US court, that Microsoft ...
The point of freedom is speech is that the government does not by fiat, court or any other means determine facts as regards the truth. I.e., you are free to disagree.
"Fast forward to today. What a sad situation when a once brash young upstart--one that totally owes its successful existence to PC users past and present--turns into the "enemy" and betrays its customers by angling to control what people can do with the machines they own."
Is history repeating itself really such a "sad situation"? As opposed to expected...
My point: MSFT might be the barrier ingenious titans must cross to get to the next "big thing" - whatever that is.
"(Don't you just hate hearing fans of a book whine about how bad the movie was?)"
(Yes.)
Unless the book's point was badmouthing coed-mobile-military shower fun, it would hardly seem to matter. : )
Now with yaw control?
So here is a little thinking question...if it is simply 100% OK to admit gays into the military (and leave them in when they are discovered), is it OK to house men and women soldiers together in the same rooms? Make them use the same showers? Make them roomies?
It worked great in Starship Troopers. Did you see the way that horny bunch kicked bug ass?
Good thing Google doesn't like to index the one frame-based site I have. Keep it tight, GOOGLE!
Why the FUD? Linux does not have support by default (unless your distro does). BFD. People that want it will get it and if it remains a small % for a long time, again, BFD.
Think back to the days when 95% didn't have a computer and 5% toyed around with slow-ass modems on Compuserver or something. It didn't matter then what 95% did and it sure as hell doesn't matter _much_ now. Get over it.
This link has more context. To clarify, I don't want to be in the position of defending this site. However, if anyone thinks Consumer Reports is above criticism, then think again. No ads does not equal objectivity. It is their spin, the line they use - like "Hey babe, I'm a doctor". BFD.
By the way, I just did three series of XP patches last night and each required a reboot (critical, drivers, then some misc crap). So Windows 9X ---> damn near all Windows!? "She thought that it meant that her brother had accessed porn on the computer and it was warning her that it was illegal." Maybe she knew something else... dang kids!
If you are looking for an opinion on Consumer Reports, then Check out this "Consumer Distorts" page. So they do have their non-anonymous critics.
Circular thinking. Find the golden tool required to reduce (dramatically) the time and expense to "debug it, redesign it, retest it, certify it, and release it". If you think it can be done, then you may not be the person to do it. I'm not either but problems should be seen as opportunities. How do I open all these cans quickly...
"Because software needs to be thoroughly tested before it can be called reliable. "Cutting edge" software tends to be poorly (relativly speaking) tested, since it hasn't had that much time in the real world."
This is circular. You nearly imply "cutting edge" is not reliable by default. This is a mistake. If there is a market demand for reliability on the consumer level, then it may need a cutting edge solution: New diagnostics or testing mechanisms. Perhaps OSS is that cutting-edge methodology and it simply has not caught on everywhere.
The typical windows 9x users believes that a restart is the natural second step to every click or change they make.
Restart is the natural second step to many installation changes if you are running Windows 9x. Do you imply users should be faulted ("non-geek users are completely ignorant") for correctly identifing this? "I knew a girl...", now I *KNOW* you are lying. : )
"Isn't the trend towards "flashy products" rather than reliable ones the same reason why current marketing pushes sex rather than product qualities (Pepsi, A&F, etc), movies flaunt big-name actors and actresses, and people won't go see a movie unless it has a high PG-13 or R rating (PG? It's got to be boring)."
If a movie advertises itself as being raunchy, edgy, in-your-face, full of T&A, and is rated as PG-13 or even PG then hell yeah don't go! PG doesn't have to be boring, but if it is a PG movie then I expect a PG preview. The other unfortunate is that knowing the rating is - in a sense - like a spoiler. Viewers know where the line is drawn and that can limit suspense - the possibility to be intelligently taken off guard.
"What's society coming?"
Exponential increases in the bitch and moan department?
Why can't there be a "cutting edge" in reliability?
Yeah that helps. Does that mean Hispanic, Black, Asian, Eskimo? Why are you too ashamed of your race to even list it, other than "non-white"?
Maybe his mother doesn't remember?
"Will they EVER stop innovating at Microsoft?"
Nope. Soon, "My Documents" will look like a disheveled pile of crap - totally realistic.
... and if our processing power is needed. Our ratio of brain-weight TO body-weight ain't too shabby.
How come these articles fail to mention the government's seizure and theft of the electo-magnetic spectrum? It is no coincidence that the internet is their big "threat". They grew accustom to restricted access channels.