They even have a nicely designed blog online where you can write in your favourite Windows-only applications.
I'd bet my left nut that he didn't design the blog himself - it's a TypePad blog. 90% of the blogs in the 'verse seem to just use one of the vanilla templates that come with the blogging software. And the design isn't even that nice.
Obviously, he's a troll and not a Mac user - real Mac users know how to steal a nice design from somebody else's blog.
We're not talking about a court of law. We're talking about friendship. He's probably heading off to college soon enough, and he's going to get hazed, or embarassed, or who knows what else.
Not if he doesn't join some fucked up frat or secret society type group.
Anyone who has been to college knows you don't get a guaranteed stress-free environment. And those kids are going to know that he's the kid who sued people for hurting his feelings.
I think you're confusing the chattering class of/. elitists with the general public. Most people have no idea who this kid is, and most people won't know unless he tells them. His 15 minutes are over, and in 5 years the only place you're gonna be able to find out about him is in a history of internet fads.
I think it's dangerous to interact with him.
This is one of the silliest statements I have read all day. Thank you for brightening my day.
And they aren't serious either. Get a grip yourself, O Morally Superior One.
b) If dude can't see it, he can't see it. My mechanic's the same way. Of course he's paid more, so maybe it's easier for him to put up with adolescents like yourself.
My complaint is that he made no effort to resolve the issue, by for instance taking it in for testing, as I suggested, and as others have stated Apple apparently has procedures for. The "Genius" obviously did not know how to do his job, or he didn't care about it enough to take the time to do it right. As far as him having to "put up with me", I was calm and reasonable at the time, at least until he so thoroughly demonstrated his incompetence. You'd have gotten upset too if you had packed up your computer and carried it all the way across town on the Metro, only to be told by some PFY who obviously didn't know how to do his job (something that has become even more apparent) that he couldn't do anything about it.
*) If you aren't 12, my bad; for some reason thought you were.
I'm not, nor did you have any reason to assume that I was. No worries though, I tend to make the same assumption about self-righteous pricks like yourself, so I guess I'm not much better.
The Genius position really does entail a significant amount of aptitude and training; though they're very forward-facing for tech support, they're equivalent to at least what you'd be getting from tier 2 support elsewhere. True, they're not gods of tech support, but in the Apple world they come pretty close. If you need an answer, they generally either have one at the ready or can get you one ASAP.
I'll believe it when I see it. Having managed a tier 2 tech support department, I would have to say this is very untrue, at least based on my anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't hire any of the geniuses I've met thus far to load AOL onto computers.
2) I'm amazed the genius on-hand didn't suggest checking the computer in for testing.
I even suggested as much to him, and he said it couldn't be done. Guess he missed the aptitude filter and didn't bother to shoe up for training.
so, you really need to reproduce the problem in front of them.
Wow, try re-reading my post a little more carefully. It's an INTERMITTENT problem. This means IT DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL OF THE TIME. It only occurs after the computer has been running for an irregular period of time, for no apparent reason. THERE WAS NO WAY I COULD "MAKE" IT HAPPEN AT MY COMMAND TO DEMONSTRATE IT.
No tech will repair somethign that's intermittent that you can't reproduce in front of them unless it's a known problem.
There are at least 3 posts to the Apple's support forums of people having the same issue, so while perhaps uncommon, it's definitely not an unknown problem. In addition, I suggested to the "genius" that I leave my computer there, told them how to reproduce it (which can be done by just leaving it on), and he said I couldn't do that. So in fact he denied me the only means I had of reproducing the problem for him to witness. I have pictures taken with my digital camera of the problem, so when I go back in I can at least show him (or hopefully somebody brighter who will be working that day) some tangible proof.
for all they know, it's interference from something else at your place or you're lying or something.
Automatically assuming your customers are liars is a terrible way to run a business. It's much better to give them the benefit of the doubt, have workable systems in place to accommodate the unusual situations (like perhaps mine), and realize that while you may get taken for a ride on occasion, in the long term you'll be better off.
Oh, just in case you want to be an untrusting ass and say "I bet you're lying" (you seem like the type who might), here's a picture of it for ya.
Maybe it's an ego thing, or maybe it's wanting the latest gadget, or maybe not wanting to worry over upgrading a year later. Maybe a combination of the three.
Hmmm, let's see...
Some people have to have the latest and greatest
I get a kick out of owning a laptop that can still smoke a desktop a year later.
In 1999 I had a laptop that could burn CDs. I couldn't say that I knew anyone else that could do that.
Sadly, my experience with my iMac G5 monitor has not been so great. If it's in use for more than an hour or two (actually, anytime after startup - 8 or so hours of being on, but usually within an hour or two), a green line appears going down the screen. I explained this to their phone support. They said take it into the Apple Store. I did. Of course, the "Mac Idiot" couldn't see the problem, because it USUALLY ONLY SHOW UP AFTER THE COMPUTER HAS BEEN IN USE FOR A WHILE. The asshole "genius" said he couldn't do anything, and I had to take my 'puter home. I'll be back in next weekend with pics of the error, and if he knows what's good for him and his children and his children's children, he'll send it in for repair.
Re:Don't they know anything about SHARING?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
There just happened to be a record company who had chosen to name their computer after a common fruit,
I'm going to assume you mean "company" or "corporation", not "computer".
Also, from what I understand, there didn't just "happen to be" a record company name Apple, but rather the Steves chose the name as a homage to the Beatles.
I don't know what the current number is, but I recall seeing somewhere aw hile back that the average iPod owner purchases something like 5-10 songs from the iTMS. In my case, I have purchased exactly 6 songs. Everything else I've gotten from the iTMS has been things like the weekly free download and a few songs that I got from the Pepsi promo they did.
When people talk about they RIAA, most of the time they mean the 4 major record labels it represents.
I really really really REALLY want to believe this is true, that people really do know the difference between the RIAA and the corporations that are members of it, but after reading/. for the last several years, I don't have that much faith in the intelligence of my fellow men and women.
You do have a way of boiling something very significant down to nothing, don't you.
Except that I didn't boil it down to nothing. Your analogies fail where mine works because Apple and Amazon are selling essentially the same product (or rather everything that Apple sells Amazon sells as well), they both sell their products online, the only essential difference is that Apple delivers their product digitally, without physical product. The iTMS is nothing more than a digital music retailer. There's not much that's special about that.
People want to buy from the mainstream record companies, despite a crappier product and higher prices, only because of familiarity and community (having the same music as your friends).
You have it partially correct:
People want to buy things they're familiar with.
People travelling don't generally eat at McDonald's because the food is better than the local mom and pop fast food joint, they eat at McDonald's because they know what they're going to get, even if what they're going to get is substandard. In the case of music, people buy from the "big four" because they're familiar with their products, when most likely they could find lots of good indie music they would like, but first they'd have to experiment and try out new music they might not like. The iTMS is good for indie labels and bands because it provides them with "shelf space" they wouldn't be able to get at Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc. Unfortunately, musicians signed with the big labels still get most of the spotlight and are featured on the front page much more often.
If you really believe that any of iPod, iTunes or iTMS could have succedded without the others, then you are very shortsighted. If you believe that Apple developed each of these three components in the order in which they did purely by coincidence, then you would be mistaken.
I'm sorry, but you're the one who is mistaken. iPod+iTunes succeeded just fine without the iTMS, and would have continued to be a success even without the iTMS. The iTMS, on the other hand, would not have been able to succeed as well as it has without the iPod. Here's a newsflash for ya: MOST PEOPLE STILL GET THEIR MUSIC FROM SOMEPLACE OTHER THAN THE ITMS. How many people do you know that fill up their 60 GB (or even 20 or 30 GB) of iPod with music bought from Apple?
If Apple gets any benefit from the iTMS and their deal with the record companies, it's vendor lock-in, i.e. once people start down the shiny iPod road, they'll keep going because they've amassed a collection of only iPod compatible DRM'ed music. I think this effect is so far negligible as most people don't own many Fairplayed music files, but as time goes on and they pick up a few tracks here and there, they will eventually have a pretty significant investment.
The record industry needs Apple just as much as Apple needs the record company.
The record industry needs Apple because the iPod/iTMS/Fairplay system supports their business model. Apple doesn't need them to sell iPods.
And without the RIAA willing to play ball, Apple has nothing with the iPod. The design of the hardware/software interfaces and the business model revolves around having iTunes/iTMS.
Executive summary: RIAA bad, Apple in bed with RIAA for business purposes, best chance of RIAA extracting stick from ass is iTMS/Fairplay model.
Why do people keep playing this same sorry tune over and over again? First off , get it straight, it's the record companies, not the RIAA. Without the record companies "playing ball", Apple would most likely still have the #1 selling digital music player, but not the #1 online music store. The success of the iPod has almost nothing to do with the iTMS, and without licensing from the labels, Apple would still have the "seamless integration" of the iPod/iTunes.
And also, the whole "business model" of the iTMS isn't revolutionary at all. People keep making such a big fucking deal about how it's soooooo cutting edge and innovative just because it's the first truly successful online music store, but in reality it's the exact same business model that the recording industry has been using forever: X amount of money to record company to split up as it chooses, generally keeping most for itself and giving a pittance to the person or persons who actually created the music, and Y amount of markup to the retailer (Apple) to cover overhead (storage, software development, bandwidth, credit card fees etc.) and maybe make a little bit of profit. At best what Apple has done is evolutionary, not revolutionary. The iTMS is nothing more than Amazon without any physical product.
Executive Summary:
1) Apple has no relationship with the RIAA, so will you idiots please stop saying that, Apple is in bed with the record companies, which is NOT the same thing 2) Apple derives little to no benefit from their business relationship with the record companies 3) The best chance of further entrenching and extending the current music industry model in the online world is the iTMS/Fairplay model.
From what I see with my own eyes, dams are very economically viable.
Sure they are, when their construction and operation are very heavily subsidized by the government. Your power is cheap because the rest of the country helps pay for it. Jackass.
Mostly BS. The reasons no new hydro plants have been built:
(1) Most of the good damn (misspelling intentional) sites have already been taken.
(2) The environmental costs. Sorry to have to break this to ya, but this is a huge part of the equation. In the last decade there have been a not insignificant number of damns, mostly smaller ones, that have been removed for environmental reasons.
(3) The economics of damns simply do not work. Especially as the size of the damn increases, no private entity can build and operate a significant damn at a profit. They're money losing ventures.
I don't mean to argue, but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court sees donating to a campaign as Speech. It is a way of enabling someone else to speak for you in the government. They may allow regulating it but it is still speech.
And the Supreme Court doesn't always get it right. See Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Korematsu v. United States, and too many other cases to list.
Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre is illegal because it is a regulation to limit "free speech" in one of the few situations where the greater good of the community outweights the individuals right to speak.
Not to be too pedantic, but this is false. The principle you are referring to is correctly stated as "Yelling fire improperly in a theater is illegal". It's perfectly legal to yell fire in a theater, crowded or otherwise, if there is indeed a fire.
The key is POLITICAL SPEECH. Be it about a politician in general, religion, human rights, world affairs, war or anything affecting policies or way of life. Again, the higher standard of protection is established in precident. [sic]
Yes, the SC has held that political speech to be closer to the "core" of the first amendment, and therefore regulation of political speech is held to a higher standard. But this higher standard does not preclude any regulation whatsoever.
Another problem I've had is signs with things like "Parking prohibited between Nice Friday and President's Holiday" (or whatever vacation days they have over there and expect that everyone have comitted to memory). Apparently using plain dates is a big no no, even in middle-endian format.
You can't use dates for many holidays because they're not observed on the same date every year.
My liberty (of speech and action) comes standard with my humanity. I don't need a 200-year-old paper to grant it to me.
No, but in a civil society you need some sort of legal instrument to guarantee and protect it. The militia-types out there will be thinking right about now, "that's what guns are for!", but they're wrong. Without debating whether the use of guns (i.e., force) is ever appropriate, it's not appropriate for everyday violations of one's rights. If people responded to violations of their rights with violence in every instance, then we'd all be dead by now. Or at least the vast majority of us.
The only trouble is that I live under a government and in a society that will do things I do not desire if I say or do certain things; I modify my behavior accordingly.
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what you're supposed to do in ANY society. Being a member of society is about making compromises. We all give up a little bit of our freedom each and every day for the common welfare of all and simply so that we can live together without beating each other's heads in. This isn't a bad thing: many of our actions are dangerous to others but not to ourselves (or even dangerous to both but given total freedom, we have the right to accept those risks personally), i.e. an expression of our rights has the ability to encroach upon somebody else's rights. To prevent this from occurring arbitrarily, as well as to prevent the strong from routinely violating the rights of the weak, we instead compromise, and each give up a little. Is the system perfect? No, but it more or less works. The problem is when governments seek to restrict our freedoms to a greater extent than we have agreed to.
Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't.
And this is exactly what the government has done.
The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.
Nice in theory, difficult in practice. Most of the Constitution is about enumerating what the government can do, but you still have things like the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause that create avast grey area between what government can and cannot do.
Slashdot Mirror
They even have a nicely designed blog online where you can write in your favourite Windows-only applications.
I'd bet my left nut that he didn't design the blog himself - it's a TypePad blog. 90% of the blogs in the 'verse seem to just use one of the vanilla templates that come with the blogging software. And the design isn't even that nice.
Obviously, he's a troll and not a Mac user - real Mac users know how to steal a nice design from somebody else's blog.
We're not talking about a court of law. We're talking about friendship. He's probably heading off to college soon enough, and he's going to get hazed, or embarassed, or who knows what else.
/. elitists with the general public. Most people have no idea who this kid is, and most people won't know unless he tells them. His 15 minutes are over, and in 5 years the only place you're gonna be able to find out about him is in a history of internet fads.
Not if he doesn't join some fucked up frat or secret society type group.
Anyone who has been to college knows you don't get a guaranteed stress-free environment. And those kids are going to know that he's the kid who sued people for hurting his feelings.
I think you're confusing the chattering class of
I think it's dangerous to interact with him.
This is one of the silliest statements I have read all day. Thank you for brightening my day.
"... Unleash Your anger, and You will complete Your journey to The darkside..."
No, I still need to take the bar exam in June.
a) Those threats aren't remotely funny.
And they aren't serious either. Get a grip yourself, O Morally Superior One.
b) If dude can't see it, he can't see it. My mechanic's the same way. Of course he's paid more, so maybe it's easier for him to put up with adolescents like yourself.
My complaint is that he made no effort to resolve the issue, by for instance taking it in for testing, as I suggested, and as others have stated Apple apparently has procedures for. The "Genius" obviously did not know how to do his job, or he didn't care about it enough to take the time to do it right. As far as him having to "put up with me", I was calm and reasonable at the time, at least until he so thoroughly demonstrated his incompetence. You'd have gotten upset too if you had packed up your computer and carried it all the way across town on the Metro, only to be told by some PFY who obviously didn't know how to do his job (something that has become even more apparent) that he couldn't do anything about it.
*) If you aren't 12, my bad; for some reason thought you were.
I'm not, nor did you have any reason to assume that I was. No worries though, I tend to make the same assumption about self-righteous pricks like yourself, so I guess I'm not much better.
The Genius position really does entail a significant amount of aptitude and training; though they're very forward-facing for tech support, they're equivalent to at least what you'd be getting from tier 2 support elsewhere. True, they're not gods of tech support, but in the Apple world they come pretty close. If you need an answer, they generally either have one at the ready or can get you one ASAP.
I'll believe it when I see it. Having managed a tier 2 tech support department, I would have to say this is very untrue, at least based on my anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't hire any of the geniuses I've met thus far to load AOL onto computers.
2) I'm amazed the genius on-hand didn't suggest checking the computer in for testing.
I even suggested as much to him, and he said it couldn't be done. Guess he missed the aptitude filter and didn't bother to shoe up for training.
so, you really need to reproduce the problem in front of them.
Wow, try re-reading my post a little more carefully. It's an INTERMITTENT problem. This means IT DOES NOT HAPPEN ALL OF THE TIME. It only occurs after the computer has been running for an irregular period of time, for no apparent reason. THERE WAS NO WAY I COULD "MAKE" IT HAPPEN AT MY COMMAND TO DEMONSTRATE IT.
No tech will repair somethign that's intermittent that you can't reproduce in front of them unless it's a known problem.
There are at least 3 posts to the Apple's support forums of people having the same issue, so while perhaps uncommon, it's definitely not an unknown problem. In addition, I suggested to the "genius" that I leave my computer there, told them how to reproduce it (which can be done by just leaving it on), and he said I couldn't do that. So in fact he denied me the only means I had of reproducing the problem for him to witness. I have pictures taken with my digital camera of the problem, so when I go back in I can at least show him (or hopefully somebody brighter who will be working that day) some tangible proof.
for all they know, it's interference from something else at your place or you're lying or something.
Automatically assuming your customers are liars is a terrible way to run a business. It's much better to give them the benefit of the doubt, have workable systems in place to accommodate the unusual situations (like perhaps mine), and realize that while you may get taken for a ride on occasion, in the long term you'll be better off.
Oh, just in case you want to be an untrusting ass and say "I bet you're lying" (you seem like the type who might), here's a picture of it for ya.
Maybe it's an ego thing, or maybe it's wanting the latest gadget, or maybe not wanting to worry over upgrading a year later. Maybe a combination of the three.
Hmmm, let's see...
Some people have to have the latest and greatest
I get a kick out of owning a laptop that can still smoke a desktop a year later.
In 1999 I had a laptop that could burn CDs. I couldn't say that I knew anyone else that could do that.
Pretty sure it's your ego.
Sadly, my experience with my iMac G5 monitor has not been so great. If it's in use for more than an hour or two (actually, anytime after startup - 8 or so hours of being on, but usually within an hour or two), a green line appears going down the screen. I explained this to their phone support. They said take it into the Apple Store. I did. Of course, the "Mac Idiot" couldn't see the problem, because it USUALLY ONLY SHOW UP AFTER THE COMPUTER HAS BEEN IN USE FOR A WHILE. The asshole "genius" said he couldn't do anything, and I had to take my 'puter home. I'll be back in next weekend with pics of the error, and if he knows what's good for him and his children and his children's children, he'll send it in for repair.
There just happened to be a record company who had chosen to name their computer after a common fruit,
I'm going to assume you mean "company" or "corporation", not "computer".
Also, from what I understand, there didn't just "happen to be" a record company name Apple, but rather the Steves chose the name as a homage to the Beatles.
Apple records doesn't make music either. They're both distributors.
No, Apple Computer is a retailer, Apple Corps. is a publisher.
I don't know what the current number is, but I recall seeing somewhere aw hile back that the average iPod owner purchases something like 5-10 songs from the iTMS. In my case, I have purchased exactly 6 songs. Everything else I've gotten from the iTMS has been things like the weekly free download and a few songs that I got from the Pepsi promo they did.
When people talk about they RIAA, most of the time they mean the 4 major record labels it represents.
/. for the last several years, I don't have that much faith in the intelligence of my fellow men and women.
I really really really REALLY want to believe this is true, that people really do know the difference between the RIAA and the corporations that are members of it, but after reading
You do have a way of boiling something very significant down to nothing, don't you.
Except that I didn't boil it down to nothing. Your analogies fail where mine works because Apple and Amazon are selling essentially the same product (or rather everything that Apple sells Amazon sells as well), they both sell their products online, the only essential difference is that Apple delivers their product digitally, without physical product. The iTMS is nothing more than a digital music retailer. There's not much that's special about that.
People want to buy from the mainstream record companies, despite a crappier product and higher prices, only because of familiarity and community (having the same music as your friends).
You have it partially correct:
People want to buy things they're familiar with.
People travelling don't generally eat at McDonald's because the food is better than the local mom and pop fast food joint, they eat at McDonald's because they know what they're going to get, even if what they're going to get is substandard. In the case of music, people buy from the "big four" because they're familiar with their products, when most likely they could find lots of good indie music they would like, but first they'd have to experiment and try out new music they might not like. The iTMS is good for indie labels and bands because it provides them with "shelf space" they wouldn't be able to get at Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc. Unfortunately, musicians signed with the big labels still get most of the spotlight and are featured on the front page much more often.
If you really believe that any of iPod, iTunes or iTMS could have succedded without the others, then you are very shortsighted. If you believe that Apple developed each of these three components in the order in which they did purely by coincidence, then you would be mistaken.
I'm sorry, but you're the one who is mistaken. iPod+iTunes succeeded just fine without the iTMS, and would have continued to be a success even without the iTMS. The iTMS, on the other hand, would not have been able to succeed as well as it has without the iPod. Here's a newsflash for ya: MOST PEOPLE STILL GET THEIR MUSIC FROM SOMEPLACE OTHER THAN THE ITMS. How many people do you know that fill up their 60 GB (or even 20 or 30 GB) of iPod with music bought from Apple?
If Apple gets any benefit from the iTMS and their deal with the record companies, it's vendor lock-in, i.e. once people start down the shiny iPod road, they'll keep going because they've amassed a collection of only iPod compatible DRM'ed music. I think this effect is so far negligible as most people don't own many Fairplayed music files, but as time goes on and they pick up a few tracks here and there, they will eventually have a pretty significant investment.
The record industry needs Apple just as much as Apple needs the record company.
The record industry needs Apple because the iPod/iTMS/Fairplay system supports their business model. Apple doesn't need them to sell iPods.
And without the RIAA willing to play ball, Apple has nothing with the iPod. The design of the hardware/software interfaces and the business model revolves around having iTunes/iTMS.
Executive summary: RIAA bad, Apple in bed with RIAA for business purposes, best chance of RIAA extracting stick from ass is iTMS/Fairplay model.
Why do people keep playing this same sorry tune over and over again? First off , get it straight, it's the record companies, not the RIAA. Without the record companies "playing ball", Apple would most likely still have the #1 selling digital music player, but not the #1 online music store. The success of the iPod has almost nothing to do with the iTMS, and without licensing from the labels, Apple would still have the "seamless integration" of the iPod/iTunes.
And also, the whole "business model" of the iTMS isn't revolutionary at all. People keep making such a big fucking deal about how it's soooooo cutting edge and innovative just because it's the first truly successful online music store, but in reality it's the exact same business model that the recording industry has been using forever: X amount of money to record company to split up as it chooses, generally keeping most for itself and giving a pittance to the person or persons who actually created the music, and Y amount of markup to the retailer (Apple) to cover overhead (storage, software development, bandwidth, credit card fees etc.) and maybe make a little bit of profit. At best what Apple has done is evolutionary, not revolutionary. The iTMS is nothing more than Amazon without any physical product.
Executive Summary:
1) Apple has no relationship with the RIAA, so will you idiots please stop saying that, Apple is in bed with the record companies, which is NOT the same thing
2) Apple derives little to no benefit from their business relationship with the record companies
3) The best chance of further entrenching and extending the current music industry model in the online world is the iTMS/Fairplay model.
An Established Brand, this alone takes a ton of cash and time to build up.
This is obviously untrue, as Facebook managed to do it with almost no money, and they've only been around for a couple of years.
From what I see with my own eyes, dams are very economically viable.
Sure they are, when their construction and operation are very heavily subsidized by the government. Your power is cheap because the rest of the country helps pay for it. Jackass.
And that we're all damned. Certainly the rivers are.
No, it's not.
*Rim shot*
More like *Air ball*
Mostly BS. The reasons no new hydro plants have been built:
(1) Most of the good damn (misspelling intentional) sites have already been taken.
(2) The environmental costs. Sorry to have to break this to ya, but this is a huge part of the equation. In the last decade there have been a not insignificant number of damns, mostly smaller ones, that have been removed for environmental reasons.
(3) The economics of damns simply do not work. Especially as the size of the damn increases, no private entity can build and operate a significant damn at a profit. They're money losing ventures.
I don't mean to argue, but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court sees donating to a campaign as Speech. It is a way of enabling someone else to speak for you in the government. They may allow regulating it but it is still speech.
And the Supreme Court doesn't always get it right. See Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Korematsu v. United States, and too many other cases to list.
Yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre is illegal because it is a regulation to limit "free speech" in one of the few situations where the greater good of the community outweights the individuals right to speak.
Not to be too pedantic, but this is false. The principle you are referring to is correctly stated as "Yelling fire improperly in a theater is illegal". It's perfectly legal to yell fire in a theater, crowded or otherwise, if there is indeed a fire.
The key is POLITICAL SPEECH. Be it about a politician in general, religion, human rights, world affairs, war or anything affecting policies or way of life. Again, the higher standard of protection is established in precident. [sic]
Yes, the SC has held that political speech to be closer to the "core" of the first amendment, and therefore regulation of political speech is held to a higher standard. But this higher standard does not preclude any regulation whatsoever.
Another problem I've had is signs with things like "Parking prohibited between Nice Friday and President's Holiday" (or whatever vacation days they have over there and expect that everyone have comitted to memory). Apparently using plain dates is a big no no, even in middle-endian format.
You can't use dates for many holidays because they're not observed on the same date every year.
My liberty (of speech and action) comes standard with my humanity. I don't need a 200-year-old paper to grant it to me.
No, but in a civil society you need some sort of legal instrument to guarantee and protect it. The militia-types out there will be thinking right about now, "that's what guns are for!", but they're wrong. Without debating whether the use of guns (i.e., force) is ever appropriate, it's not appropriate for everyday violations of one's rights. If people responded to violations of their rights with violence in every instance, then we'd all be dead by now. Or at least the vast majority of us.
The only trouble is that I live under a government and in a society that will do things I do not desire if I say or do certain things; I modify my behavior accordingly.
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what you're supposed to do in ANY society. Being a member of society is about making compromises. We all give up a little bit of our freedom each and every day for the common welfare of all and simply so that we can live together without beating each other's heads in. This isn't a bad thing: many of our actions are dangerous to others but not to ourselves (or even dangerous to both but given total freedom, we have the right to accept those risks personally), i.e. an expression of our rights has the ability to encroach upon somebody else's rights. To prevent this from occurring arbitrarily, as well as to prevent the strong from routinely violating the rights of the weak, we instead compromise, and each give up a little. Is the system perfect? No, but it more or less works. The problem is when governments seek to restrict our freedoms to a greater extent than we have agreed to.
Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't.
And this is exactly what the government has done.
The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.
Nice in theory, difficult in practice. Most of the Constitution is about enumerating what the government can do, but you still have things like the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause that create avast grey area between what government can and cannot do.
P.S. - liberty dollars are a fraud.