Actually, I think lengthening the term of copyright by the CTEA in the 90s was when IP law finally up and moved to San Francisco.
It came out when copyright was extended beyond 28 years with a 28-year optional extension. It may have realized its sexual proclivities when the term was lengthened to the 28/28 scheme.
I seem to recall a lecturer visiting my hometown's community college and giving a genetics lecture. During the lecture he claimed that the plague caused a lot of people with the CCR5 receptor that HIV attacks to die off (the plague also attacks CCR5, allegedly), thus creating a non-trivial population of northwestern Europeans who are immune to HIV.
What's the current status of this theory? Google returns quite a few hits, but as I'm not a geneticist, and technically haven't taken a biology class in 13 years, I'm not that qualified to filter out bunk.
That service exists, fine. But it doesn't change the thrust of my argument one bit: You still have to rely on a third-party as a barrier to entry for IPv6.
I don't know what "liberal thought" has to do with it. You do realize that conservatives oppose gun control and gun registration because it infringes their privacy, right?
Neither party nor any political philosophy has a monopoly on desiring privacy.
That's different. IPv6 has other significant hardware, third-party barriers to entry. You can't communicate via IPv6 with someone else unless your ISPs both support IPv6 via hardware upgrades.
On the other hand, you and your buddy can communicate via encrypted data without requiring a third-party to do anything.
Related to your quick overview of the "new" research, I'd like to say to the Slashdot editors (in typical bitchy reader fashion): Welcome to many years ago.
When I started a weight-lifting program three years ago, I did research (in typical scientist fashion) to make sure I don't waste my time doing ineffective exercises.
Almost everything I read suggested an extremely mild warmup and not to stretch heavily for the very reason that it weakens muscles and makes you much more injury-prone.
This is why I do a 2-3 minute jog and 20 seconds of stretching the major muscles I will be using (hams, quads, pecs, lower back). For anyone interested in starting up a pretty good routine for strength training (not body building), google Stronglifts. The info is all free (and, most importantly, effective!) and the support network is excellent.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot: I heard that clicking your mouse will give you ripped abs, guys!
No. I'm pointing out that the Constitution was founded on the principle that a government too limited would fail, so it had to have at a minimum some sort of expansive powers. For example, see Article I and the enumerated powers, which are followed by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which expands Congress's authority beyond what is specifically delineated.
Recall that the Constitution was a direct response to another "constitution" that failed because it limited the government too much.
You, on the other hand, are trying to characterize government power as some sort of binary world where a government is either "limited" or "expansive." I'm merely pointing out that you'd be wrong to think that.
We tried a limited government. The basis was called the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps you've heard of how spectacularly it failed?
Size of government is not a binary function. It is a continuum. It's not "small govt=good, big govt=bad." It's more "too small govt=bad, too big govt=bad, stuff in the middle=varying degrees of good."
Can you imagine the outcry if Palin had been married to someone who wanted Alaska to secede from the United StaOOOOOOOOOOH WAIT.
Can you imagine the outcry if McCain had engaged in dirty deeds with a corrupt savings and loan manOOOOOOOH WAIT.
Can you imagine the outcry if Palin had attended an anti-Jewish churchOOOOOOH WAIT.
The fact is, the media didn't cover any of that either. And the first two accusations I made are pretty much incontrovertibly true. You want to know why no one covered it? Because the Obama campaign realized no one wants to hear that bullshit anymore. I'm sick of it, and I voted accordingly. The last week or so in Texas had negative ads against Obama ("bleep bleep America," "friends with unrepentant terrorist," etc.). I heard negative ads about McCain/Palin, too, but not about Keating, anti-semitism, nor secession. I heard negative ads about policy leveled at McCain.
And one more thing: Regarding Todd Palin's membership in the secessionist movement, there were plenty of attacks on Michelle Obama being un-American, etc. However, I sure didn't hear anything about Palin being un-American despite the fact that secession from the union is pretty much, by definition, un-American.
Does the First Amendment cover paintings? If so, please tell me the difference between paintings and dance. If not, if the Constitution does protect silent film, please tell me what distinguishes silent film from paintings and dance.
First, I apologize for casting you as a person respecting Scalia above many others. I responded to about three posts extolling the virtues of literalistic constitutional interpretation in this thread, and they all ran together in my head at 2am last night. I made a mistake.
Second, statutes are quasi-contracts. They are agreements between members of society to behave in a certain way. There is a meeting of the minds (through the representatives of society, of course, since we're engaging in a level of abstraction merely used to aid in understanding statutory construction). There is consideration (members agree to bind themselves to certain behaviors in exchange for the other members reciprocating). While I shouldn't have so blatantly said "the Constitution is a contract," I think my point has merit in at least one way: treating the Constitution as a contract benefits the journey of constitutional interpretation. See, e.g., Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau and the theory of the social contract.
Third, regarding Heller, I don't have a strong opinion on Heller in particular. I really just picked that one out because of my attack on literalism. It was half baked and not geared toward law review quality. I find your argument re: the 2d Amd. to be well-made, and at a Slashdot-level of parsing I don't find anything too objectionable (except that I subscribe to Ginsburg's "living document" interpretation--I think (I am merely still learning the law)).
Finally, you agree that non-verbal communication is protected by the First Amendment. This is the only concession I want/need in the discussion.
Is murder not a non-verbal communication of "I want you dead"? I think it's incontrovertibly so. Thus, murder statutes seem to be unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment.
However, this is clearly ridiculous. Murder statutes existed at the framing of the Constitution and the framers had no problem with them.
This leads to the only conclusion I find logical: the framers never intended for a literalist, strict constructionist view of the Constitution to actually be used. Originalism perhaps. But strict construction? No.
Forgive me if you agree with my argument and I'm preaching to the choir.
Now I think you're a well-reasoned/.er, so I want to pose a couple questions: 1. What do you think of the Preamble? Does it hold any force whatsoever, or is it just a bunch of bullshit we shouldn't care about? Why?
2. As a repetition of arguments that went on in the late 1780s: If Congress is explicitly limited to their enumerated powers, then what use is the First Amendment in the first place? There is nothing in the Constitution (except maaaybe the "necessary and proper" clause) that would permit any abridgement of speech in the first place! Thus, why have a First Amendment? I think it's because the framers (for the most part) recognized that literalism was folly. But I think I read into your post that you are not a literalist, but rather an originalist. I have less of a problem with originalists than I do with literalists.
Perhaps we have no quarrel. Perhaps we do. In any case, I'm very interested to read your responses, as it's been over a year since I've had some real deep constitutional analysis done, and next semester I'm enrolled in "Advanced Constitutional Structure." This is a refresher for me!
You're right; I was writing at 2am and not thinking. They do claim to be "fair and balanced." However, you'd have to be an absolute moron (or so conservative that you think things that agree with you are unbiased) not to see their conservative bias (and I see liberal bias in MSNBC, e.g., so you can't claim that I'm some "HURR I HAET FOX MSNBC IS UNBIASED" guy).
I prefer honest bias rather than fake pretense of non-bias.
You must really hate Fox News, then. "Fair and Balanced"? Please. Did you even watch the last week of Fox News before the election?
Of course ignoring his opinion in Heller, where he ignores the original meaning of "arms" in the Second Amendment ("muskets and other 18th century technology"). I mean, if he's going to interpret "habeas corpus" in Article I to be what it meant in 1797 (which he has done repeatedly this century), then he'd better apply the same logic to words like "arms."
Except that he's just as inconsistent as any other educated legal scholar out there.
In a nutshell, it's because the First Amendment, when read literally, leads to one of two conclusions: (1) deaf-mute people and handwritten-tome authors have no First Amendment rights because they do not engage in verbal communication (one definition of "speech") nor are they "the press." OR (2) murder is protected under the First Amendment as non-verbal communication (the other definition of "speech"). Both are clearly very, very stupid. So stupid, in fact, that there's no way the framers actually intended for this to happen. As people have said, the framers were not idiots.
The only conclusion we have left is that the framers did not intend for strict construction to be a rule of constitutional interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think lengthening the term of copyright by the CTEA in the 90s was when IP law finally up and moved to San Francisco.
It came out when copyright was extended beyond 28 years with a 28-year optional extension. It may have realized its sexual proclivities when the term was lengthened to the 28/28 scheme.
I seem to recall a lecturer visiting my hometown's community college and giving a genetics lecture. During the lecture he claimed that the plague caused a lot of people with the CCR5 receptor that HIV attacks to die off (the plague also attacks CCR5, allegedly), thus creating a non-trivial population of northwestern Europeans who are immune to HIV.
What's the current status of this theory? Google returns quite a few hits, but as I'm not a geneticist, and technically haven't taken a biology class in 13 years, I'm not that qualified to filter out bunk.
That service exists, fine. But it doesn't change the thrust of my argument one bit: You still have to rely on a third-party as a barrier to entry for IPv6.
OK. It's time for an all-out war between you {CS nerds, set theorists, etc.} and us {number theoreticians}. Zero isn't a natural number, guys!
I can't tell what you're asking. Are you asking what it means if:
and no contradiction is arrived at? If that's your question, then the answer is: the original theorem has been neither proven nor disproven.
Hasn't CPR proven that death is not entropic?
I don't know what "liberal thought" has to do with it. You do realize that conservatives oppose gun control and gun registration because it infringes their privacy, right?
Neither party nor any political philosophy has a monopoly on desiring privacy.
That's different. IPv6 has other significant hardware, third-party barriers to entry. You can't communicate via IPv6 with someone else unless your ISPs both support IPv6 via hardware upgrades.
On the other hand, you and your buddy can communicate via encrypted data without requiring a third-party to do anything.
All data that leaves your computer on the Tor network is encrypted already. At least, that's what Wikipedia and I thought.
Two words: sovereign immunity.
It's too bad you have a parliamentary government, or I could make this joke:
Related to your quick overview of the "new" research, I'd like to say to the Slashdot editors (in typical bitchy reader fashion): Welcome to many years ago.
When I started a weight-lifting program three years ago, I did research (in typical scientist fashion) to make sure I don't waste my time doing ineffective exercises.
Almost everything I read suggested an extremely mild warmup and not to stretch heavily for the very reason that it weakens muscles and makes you much more injury-prone.
This is why I do a 2-3 minute jog and 20 seconds of stretching the major muscles I will be using (hams, quads, pecs, lower back). For anyone interested in starting up a pretty good routine for strength training (not body building), google Stronglifts. The info is all free (and, most importantly, effective!) and the support network is excellent.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot: I heard that clicking your mouse will give you ripped abs, guys!
No. I'm pointing out that the Constitution was founded on the principle that a government too limited would fail, so it had to have at a minimum some sort of expansive powers. For example, see Article I and the enumerated powers, which are followed by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which expands Congress's authority beyond what is specifically delineated.
Recall that the Constitution was a direct response to another "constitution" that failed because it limited the government too much.
You, on the other hand, are trying to characterize government power as some sort of binary world where a government is either "limited" or "expansive." I'm merely pointing out that you'd be wrong to think that.
Really? Because when I look up "speech" in the dictionary, it says "[t]he expression . . . by spoken word, vocal sounds, or gestures."
We tried a limited government. The basis was called the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps you've heard of how spectacularly it failed?
Size of government is not a binary function. It is a continuum. It's not "small govt=good, big govt=bad." It's more "too small govt=bad, too big govt=bad, stuff in the middle=varying degrees of good."
That's not a citation. That's anecdotal evidence.
Can you imagine the outcry if Palin had been married to someone who wanted Alaska to secede from the United StaOOOOOOOOOOH WAIT.
Can you imagine the outcry if McCain had engaged in dirty deeds with a corrupt savings and loan manOOOOOOOH WAIT.
Can you imagine the outcry if Palin had attended an anti-Jewish churchOOOOOOH WAIT.
The fact is, the media didn't cover any of that either. And the first two accusations I made are pretty much incontrovertibly true. You want to know why no one covered it? Because the Obama campaign realized no one wants to hear that bullshit anymore. I'm sick of it, and I voted accordingly. The last week or so in Texas had negative ads against Obama ("bleep bleep America," "friends with unrepentant terrorist," etc.). I heard negative ads about McCain/Palin, too, but not about Keating, anti-semitism, nor secession. I heard negative ads about policy leveled at McCain.
And one more thing: Regarding Todd Palin's membership in the secessionist movement, there were plenty of attacks on Michelle Obama being un-American, etc. However, I sure didn't hear anything about Palin being un-American despite the fact that secession from the union is pretty much, by definition, un-American.
Does the First Amendment cover paintings? If so, please tell me the difference between paintings and dance. If not, if the Constitution does protect silent film, please tell me what distinguishes silent film from paintings and dance.
A few points.
First, I apologize for casting you as a person respecting Scalia above many others. I responded to about three posts extolling the virtues of literalistic constitutional interpretation in this thread, and they all ran together in my head
at 2am last night. I made a mistake.
Second, statutes are quasi-contracts. They are agreements between members of society to behave in a certain way. There is a meeting of the minds (through the representatives of society, of course, since we're engaging in a level of abstraction merely used to aid in understanding statutory construction). There is consideration (members agree to bind themselves to certain behaviors in exchange for the other members reciprocating). While I shouldn't have so blatantly said "the Constitution is a contract," I think my point has merit in at least one way: treating the Constitution as a contract benefits the journey of constitutional interpretation. See, e.g., Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau and the theory of the social contract.
Third, regarding Heller, I don't have a strong opinion on Heller in particular. I really just picked that one out because of my attack on literalism. It was half baked and not geared toward law review quality. I find your argument re: the 2d Amd. to be well-made, and at a Slashdot-level of parsing I don't find anything too objectionable (except that I subscribe to Ginsburg's "living document" interpretation--I think (I am merely still learning the law)).
Finally, you agree that non-verbal communication is protected by the First Amendment. This is the only concession I want/need in the discussion.
Is murder not a non-verbal communication of "I want you dead"? I think it's incontrovertibly so. Thus, murder statutes seem to be unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment.
However, this is clearly ridiculous. Murder statutes existed at the framing of the Constitution and the framers had no problem with them.
This leads to the only conclusion I find logical: the framers never intended for a literalist, strict constructionist view of the Constitution to actually be used. Originalism perhaps. But strict construction? No.
Forgive me if you agree with my argument and I'm preaching to the choir.
Now I think you're a well-reasoned /.er, so I want to pose a couple questions:
1. What do you think of the Preamble? Does it hold any force whatsoever, or is it just a bunch of bullshit we shouldn't care about? Why?
2. As a repetition of arguments that went on in the late 1780s: If Congress is explicitly limited to their enumerated powers, then what use is the First Amendment in the first place? There is nothing in the Constitution (except maaaybe the "necessary and proper" clause) that would permit any abridgement of speech in the first place! Thus, why have a First Amendment? I think it's because the framers (for the most part) recognized that literalism was folly. But I think I read into your post that you are not a literalist, but rather an originalist. I have less of a problem with originalists than I do with literalists.
Perhaps we have no quarrel. Perhaps we do. In any case, I'm very interested to read your responses, as it's been over a year since I've had some real deep constitutional analysis done, and next semester I'm enrolled in "Advanced Constitutional Structure." This is a refresher for me!
You're right; I was writing at 2am and not thinking. They do claim to be "fair and balanced." However, you'd have to be an absolute moron (or so conservative that you think things that agree with you are unbiased) not to see their conservative bias (and I see liberal bias in MSNBC, e.g., so you can't claim that I'm some "HURR I HAET FOX MSNBC IS UNBIASED" guy).
You must really hate Fox News, then. "Fair and Balanced"? Please. Did you even watch the last week of Fox News before the election?
Actually, non-verbal expression IS protected--film, dance, paintings, etc.
What has been seen cannot be unseen.
Of course ignoring his opinion in Heller, where he ignores the original meaning of "arms" in the Second Amendment ("muskets and other 18th century technology"). I mean, if he's going to interpret "habeas corpus" in Article I to be what it meant in 1797 (which he has done repeatedly this century), then he'd better apply the same logic to words like "arms."
Except that he's just as inconsistent as any other educated legal scholar out there.
The most authoritative linguists suggest that it derives from a proto-Germanic language (Frisian, Old English, Norse, etc.).
There are possible Latin (or Greek!) ties, but these are much more tenuous, with logical gaps. These theories are much less supported.
In a nutshell, it's because the First Amendment, when read literally, leads to one of two conclusions:
(1) deaf-mute people and handwritten-tome authors have no First Amendment rights because they do not engage in verbal communication (one definition of "speech") nor are they "the press." OR
(2) murder is protected under the First Amendment as non-verbal communication (the other definition of "speech").
Both are clearly very, very stupid. So stupid, in fact, that there's no way the framers actually intended for this to happen. As people have said, the framers were not idiots.
The only conclusion we have left is that the framers did not intend for strict construction to be a rule of constitutional interpretation.