"the right of the people to self-determination" People absolutely do not have such a right; they only have the power they can seize by whatever means they choose to employ, peaceful or violent.
Besides do you really want your parents knowing you spent the night drinking and then had a one night stand with a a random woman you picked up while drunk?
Mixing family and friend relationships is in general a bad idea, unless you are a very boring person.
What the hell, there are literally zero people on Slashdot who have to worry about your hypothetical!
Only if you use the logo in a narrow context and there's a legitimate risk of mark confusion. You'll note how American Pie did not have "Chevy" stricken from its lyrics.
To be fair, though, learning Spanish would probably address 80+% of the patients you see outside of a few ethnic enclaves like Chinatowns. At least in TX anyway, knowing Spanish and English basically guarantees you will be able to talk to any patient you see except the extremely rare case like a family visiting from Bhutan.
That being said, given how much a doctor's time is worth, I'd imagine a $16K subscription service to a translation hotline for an entire hospital is far cheaper than paying for Spanish classes for nearly every new doctor/resident to come through the doors.
My wife is a surgical resident. While she speaks a number of languages such that she has not had a language barrier problem, one of her coworkers only knows English. He has something on his iPhone (IIRC, one of the Google apps + the ability to have the iPhone read things out loud + the iPhone's voice recognition) that he uses. Apparently it works quite well. He speaks into it in English, it translates to Spanish, and the iPhone speaks the Spanish. His patient can speak Spanish into it, translate to English, and so on.
For simple things like "where does it hurt?" or "have you had any diarrhea?" it is reported to work well for him.
This entire discussion is pursuant to the hypothetical where the governor actually ordered this site blocked, as opposed to what we've since discovered is the actual case of just a whitelist problem blown out of proportion.
1. The ALA case you're citing is inapplicable to the current issue. The issue in the ALA case was not core, political speech, so it did not receive strict scrutiny (much to the dismay of Souter as per his dissent). It received intermediate scrutiny as I discussed in my first command (see "TMP restrictions"). However, as discussed above, since in our hypothetical, the governor is only blocking pro-union websites, it is not content neutral. Hell, it's not even viewpoint neutral. So it would fail to survive intermediate scrutiny. To elaborate on viewpoint neutrality, a violation of viewpoint neutrality (i.e., viewpoint discrimination) is considered particularly bad and regulations/laws that result in such discrimination are considered facially unconstitutional. IN other words, they're basically smacked down right away.
In the ALA case, the libraries were instructed to block websites "harmful to minors," which is a content neutral, presumptively constitutional TMP restriction. Very much like how the FCC can ban the use of the word "cunt" on broadcast TV or radio at 4pm (again, a TMP restriction). Or can ban you from protesting the War in Iraq at 2pm across the street from a high school in session. Again, a TMP restriction.
I don't really care to delve any deeper into why your reasoning here is wrong (e.g., that one factor weighing in favor of the restrictions in the ALA case was that a library is not traditionally considered a public forum, but of course the capitol building would be considered a public forum) because it's sufficient to show that the case is distinguishable (as I have done) and move on.
2. Pretending for a moment that we're talking about Washington instead of Wisconsin here (because you're linking to WA discussion for some reason):
I don't care what someone thinks about the Washington Constitution and whether an Internet filter passes WA-constitutional muster in this case. Thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment has been "incorporated" and applies not just to the Federal government, but to state governments as well. As such, regardless of whether the governor in our hypothetical is doing something OK under the WA constitution, my analysis still holds true for the US Constitution. And since it's the law of the land, the argument stops there. There is no need to even inquire as to whether it's WA-constitutional, because it's already US-unconstitutional, and the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
3. I don't think anyone in Wisconsin gives a rats ass what Washington law is.
I stand by my statement that this is not a FA issue
You can stand by it all you want; you'll remain wrong.
I highly suggest you buy this book and read it: http://www.amazon.com/First-Amendment-Third-Cass-Sunstein/dp/0735569290/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1298593504&sr=8-3 It's the textbook we used in my Free Speech class in law school. It also covers the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses, but my class was strictly about free speech and not about freedom of religion, to petition, or of association. It's very good, and you'll get a lot of background about things like the Lemon Test, TMP restrictions, various levels of constitutional scrutiny, viewpoint/content discrimination, public forums, prior restraint, etc., by reading the very cases that have shaped FA jurisprudence.
No, it's not a FA violation. The government is under no obligation to provide you access to news, other people's speech, porn, or whatever else you want to get to on the internet.
Yes, if they are blocking only certain sites that contain certain types of protected political speech, it is 100%, unequivocally, irrefutably a FA violation. Now, reading further down the page I discovered this was just a generic whitelist thing, so it's not a violation. But if the governor said to his IT guys "block this union's website on capitol grounds," then it is a FA violation, and no one who has even a rudimentary understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence would argue otherwise. The government could block all websites, all websites unrelated to work, all websites that are obscene, etc., but they cannot block "all websites that are pro-union" or "this specific pro-union site." That would be a FA violation.
If it's the only site they're blocking (or one of a small handful of sites they're blocking), then it is most definitely a First Amendment ("FA") violation. The federal or a state government can only block sites in certain ways.
First off, a pro-union website would be classified as "core political speech," which receives the highest FA protection. In order for this blocking to be upheld, the blocking would have to overcome strict scrutiny analysis. Strict scrutiny analysis is an extremely stringent analysis, and in order to survive such analysis, the policymaker would have to show (1) a compelling government interest; (2) the law is narrowly tailored to that specific interest; and (3) the policy is the least restrictive means for accomplishing that interest.
Given the Wisconsin governor's comments in the past about unions (he's trying to permanently remove collective bargaining rights from the teachers union, e.g.), I suspect there is no compelling government interest aside from a desire to shut unions up. Beyond that, almost no law/policy overcomes strict scrutiny in real life, so it's almost a given that this would be struck down.
Now I suppose this could be a TMP (time, manner, place) restriction, which would only need to withstand intermediate scrutiny. Such scrutiny requires the policymaker to show the policy is (1) content neutral; (2) narrowly tailored; (3) serves a significant governmental interest; and (4) leaves open ample alternative communication channels. This policy would assuredly fail based on its content non-neutrality.
I'll be honest: at least at public universities, I don't give a flying fuck about whether a public employee gets a patent on something he discovered while working for a public institution while already pulling high five or low six figures with absolute job security due to tenure.
Professors at private institutions who create things with no NSF funding, well that's a different story.
You're basically arguing a very, very old and antiquated interpretation of the First Amendment; namely, one that asserts the First Amendment only protects against prior restraint.
Unfortunately for you, basically no one believes this nowadays.
To illustrate why what you're asserting is just plain silly, let's just say that, instead of a government editing the NYT before publication, it decides to issue a law saying "the NYT is free to publish anything criticizing Obama, but if Obama doesn't like it he try the author for sedition."
He's allowed to say it (but gets punished only after the fact), so it's kosher as per your interpretation of the First Amendment!
By the time I was a sentient human being able to form long-term memories, they had stopped making a big deal about space travel. (I think maybe when I was very, very young I caught a couple seconds of a flight one weekend morning on one of the Big 3.)
Which is very sad. I dream of making it to Florida to see the last shuttle launch (IIRC it got delayed and hasn't been carried out yet) with my own eyes, but, due to the economy, I can't afford it. I guess I'll never get to see the shuttle launch, completely missing out on one of the most important spans of human history.
I'm just hoping that we start funding NASA better (thanks, Obama!), so we can recapture a bit of that dream before I'm dead.
ODT is as much of a de facto standard [as Microsoft Word formats]
What the hell planet do you live on? Or, more likely, do you not know what "de facto" means?
Outside of the tech industry, there is no one who uses any program that defaults to ODT. I have literally never encountered an ODT in my professional career. I do not know a single person who is not a techie who even knows what ODT is.
"Carmack Says NGP Is a 'Generation Beyond' Smartphones"
Well, except for the "is a phone" part.
Breaking: The PS3 is generations ahead of all smartphones, too!
I have no idea how many people buy an iPhone just so they can play games, but it's likely not very many; I suspect more buy the phone because it can make calls (and play games and do other nifty stuff and everyone thinks it's cool).
Android I'm not so sure about. I literally do not know a single person who uses an Android-based phone (although I want to get one, if only ATT didn't hamstring their offering's functionality!).
Yeah. Let's face it, Open Office makes terrible looking graphs. I'm surprised a billion-dollar company can't afford to make nicer looking graphs.
All that being said, I have Time Warner, and I'm pleased with what I'm getting for $30/mo. I can hold steady at 1MB/s if the server can upload that fast. I don't care too much about up, as I upload very little. But, for what it's worth, I can sustain 50KB/s.
You know, nerds love to consider themselves smart and "above" being "brainwashed by ads," yet how many rated Dark Knight Returns a 10 on IMDB before the movie came out, based solely on hype?
Also, please see Avatar and think about 13yo girls and Titanic in the 90s.
Nerds obeying advertisements is not a rare occurrence.
But later on where everything is convincingly done on blue screen
As an actor, I'd just like to say: things will never be done convincingly on blue screen so long as you're using actual human actors. You'll just end up with talent like Ewan McGregor looking like Yubi Wan' Jablowmi? over and over again.
lots of Americans seem to be holding a grudge over colonial times and the War of Independence
I have lived in the US for 26 years, have been to 30 states, have family in 10+, and have literally never met a single person who even comes close to "seeming to bear a grudge" against England.
I also stopped when I saw how, as an indicator of modern TV decline, the 60s had a senior marketing executive (apparently in contrast to now, when a show like Mad Men, about nothing but senior marketing executives, does not exist).
Slashdot Mirror
"the right of the people to self-determination"
People absolutely do not have such a right; they only have the power they can seize by whatever means they choose to employ, peaceful or violent.
There is no such thing as natural law.
All's I know is that chap Obama must be our President, because he hasn't got shit all over him.
What the hell, there are literally zero people on Slashdot who have to worry about your hypothetical!
You might have gotten at least a pity mod point if you'd spelled "fjord" correctly.
Only if you use the logo in a narrow context and there's a legitimate risk of mark confusion. You'll note how American Pie did not have "Chevy" stricken from its lyrics.
To be fair, though, learning Spanish would probably address 80+% of the patients you see outside of a few ethnic enclaves like Chinatowns. At least in TX anyway, knowing Spanish and English basically guarantees you will be able to talk to any patient you see except the extremely rare case like a family visiting from Bhutan.
That being said, given how much a doctor's time is worth, I'd imagine a $16K subscription service to a translation hotline for an entire hospital is far cheaper than paying for Spanish classes for nearly every new doctor/resident to come through the doors.
What is this service? My wife is a doctor at a couple hospitals, and this might be of use to her hospitals.
My wife is a surgical resident. While she speaks a number of languages such that she has not had a language barrier problem, one of her coworkers only knows English. He has something on his iPhone (IIRC, one of the Google apps + the ability to have the iPhone read things out loud + the iPhone's voice recognition) that he uses. Apparently it works quite well. He speaks into it in English, it translates to Spanish, and the iPhone speaks the Spanish. His patient can speak Spanish into it, translate to English, and so on.
For simple things like "where does it hurt?" or "have you had any diarrhea?" it is reported to work well for him.
This entire discussion is pursuant to the hypothetical where the governor actually ordered this site blocked, as opposed to what we've since discovered is the actual case of just a whitelist problem blown out of proportion.
1. The ALA case you're citing is inapplicable to the current issue. The issue in the ALA case was not core, political speech, so it did not receive strict scrutiny (much to the dismay of Souter as per his dissent). It received intermediate scrutiny as I discussed in my first command (see "TMP restrictions"). However, as discussed above, since in our hypothetical, the governor is only blocking pro-union websites, it is not content neutral. Hell, it's not even viewpoint neutral. So it would fail to survive intermediate scrutiny. To elaborate on viewpoint neutrality, a violation of viewpoint neutrality (i.e., viewpoint discrimination) is considered particularly bad and regulations/laws that result in such discrimination are considered facially unconstitutional. IN other words, they're basically smacked down right away.
In the ALA case, the libraries were instructed to block websites "harmful to minors," which is a content neutral, presumptively constitutional TMP restriction. Very much like how the FCC can ban the use of the word "cunt" on broadcast TV or radio at 4pm (again, a TMP restriction). Or can ban you from protesting the War in Iraq at 2pm across the street from a high school in session. Again, a TMP restriction.
I don't really care to delve any deeper into why your reasoning here is wrong (e.g., that one factor weighing in favor of the restrictions in the ALA case was that a library is not traditionally considered a public forum, but of course the capitol building would be considered a public forum) because it's sufficient to show that the case is distinguishable (as I have done) and move on.
2. Pretending for a moment that we're talking about Washington instead of Wisconsin here (because you're linking to WA discussion for some reason):
I don't care what someone thinks about the Washington Constitution and whether an Internet filter passes WA-constitutional muster in this case. Thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment has been "incorporated" and applies not just to the Federal government, but to state governments as well. As such, regardless of whether the governor in our hypothetical is doing something OK under the WA constitution, my analysis still holds true for the US Constitution. And since it's the law of the land, the argument stops there. There is no need to even inquire as to whether it's WA-constitutional, because it's already US-unconstitutional, and the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
3. I don't think anyone in Wisconsin gives a rats ass what Washington law is.
You can stand by it all you want; you'll remain wrong.
I highly suggest you buy this book and read it: http://www.amazon.com/First-Amendment-Third-Cass-Sunstein/dp/0735569290/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1298593504&sr=8-3 It's the textbook we used in my Free Speech class in law school. It also covers the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses, but my class was strictly about free speech and not about freedom of religion, to petition, or of association. It's very good, and you'll get a lot of background about things like the Lemon Test, TMP restrictions, various levels of constitutional scrutiny, viewpoint/content discrimination, public forums, prior restraint, etc., by reading the very cases that have shaped FA jurisprudence.
Yes, if they are blocking only certain sites that contain certain types of protected political speech, it is 100%, unequivocally, irrefutably a FA violation. Now, reading further down the page I discovered this was just a generic whitelist thing, so it's not a violation. But if the governor said to his IT guys "block this union's website on capitol grounds," then it is a FA violation, and no one who has even a rudimentary understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence would argue otherwise.
The government could block all websites, all websites unrelated to work, all websites that are obscene, etc., but they cannot block "all websites that are pro-union" or "this specific pro-union site." That would be a FA violation.
If it's the only site they're blocking (or one of a small handful of sites they're blocking), then it is most definitely a First Amendment ("FA") violation. The federal or a state government can only block sites in certain ways.
First off, a pro-union website would be classified as "core political speech," which receives the highest FA protection. In order for this blocking to be upheld, the blocking would have to overcome strict scrutiny analysis. Strict scrutiny analysis is an extremely stringent analysis, and in order to survive such analysis, the policymaker would have to show (1) a compelling government interest; (2) the law is narrowly tailored to that specific interest; and (3) the policy is the least restrictive means for accomplishing that interest.
Given the Wisconsin governor's comments in the past about unions (he's trying to permanently remove collective bargaining rights from the teachers union, e.g.), I suspect there is no compelling government interest aside from a desire to shut unions up. Beyond that, almost no law/policy overcomes strict scrutiny in real life, so it's almost a given that this would be struck down.
Now I suppose this could be a TMP (time, manner, place) restriction, which would only need to withstand intermediate scrutiny. Such scrutiny requires the policymaker to show the policy is (1) content neutral; (2) narrowly tailored; (3) serves a significant governmental interest; and (4) leaves open ample alternative communication channels. This policy would assuredly fail based on its content non-neutrality.
"Purposely"?! [[citation really, really needed]]
And also have, you know, the entire United States visible when the map first loads.
I'll be honest: at least at public universities, I don't give a flying fuck about whether a public employee gets a patent on something he discovered while working for a public institution while already pulling high five or low six figures with absolute job security due to tenure.
Professors at private institutions who create things with no NSF funding, well that's a different story.
You're basically arguing a very, very old and antiquated interpretation of the First Amendment; namely, one that asserts the First Amendment only protects against prior restraint.
Unfortunately for you, basically no one believes this nowadays.
To illustrate why what you're asserting is just plain silly, let's just say that, instead of a government editing the NYT before publication, it decides to issue a law saying "the NYT is free to publish anything criticizing Obama, but if Obama doesn't like it he try the author for sedition."
He's allowed to say it (but gets punished only after the fact), so it's kosher as per your interpretation of the First Amendment!
Ceci n'est pas une kg.
By the time I was a sentient human being able to form long-term memories, they had stopped making a big deal about space travel. (I think maybe when I was very, very young I caught a couple seconds of a flight one weekend morning on one of the Big 3.)
Which is very sad. I dream of making it to Florida to see the last shuttle launch (IIRC it got delayed and hasn't been carried out yet) with my own eyes, but, due to the economy, I can't afford it. I guess I'll never get to see the shuttle launch, completely missing out on one of the most important spans of human history.
I'm just hoping that we start funding NASA better (thanks, Obama!), so we can recapture a bit of that dream before I'm dead.
What the hell planet do you live on? Or, more likely, do you not know what "de facto" means?
Outside of the tech industry, there is no one who uses any program that defaults to ODT. I have literally never encountered an ODT in my professional career. I do not know a single person who is not a techie who even knows what ODT is.
Well, except for the "is a phone" part.
Breaking: The PS3 is generations ahead of all smartphones, too!
I have no idea how many people buy an iPhone just so they can play games, but it's likely not very many; I suspect more buy the phone because it can make calls (and play games and do other nifty stuff and everyone thinks it's cool).
Android I'm not so sure about. I literally do not know a single person who uses an Android-based phone (although I want to get one, if only ATT didn't hamstring their offering's functionality!).
Yeah. Let's face it, Open Office makes terrible looking graphs. I'm surprised a billion-dollar company can't afford to make nicer looking graphs.
All that being said, I have Time Warner, and I'm pleased with what I'm getting for $30/mo. I can hold steady at 1MB/s if the server can upload that fast. I don't care too much about up, as I upload very little. But, for what it's worth, I can sustain 50KB/s.
Man, Hitler and Pol Pot were dumbasses.
You know, nerds love to consider themselves smart and "above" being "brainwashed by ads," yet how many rated Dark Knight Returns a 10 on IMDB before the movie came out, based solely on hype?
Also, please see Avatar and think about 13yo girls and Titanic in the 90s.
Nerds obeying advertisements is not a rare occurrence.
As an actor, I'd just like to say: things will never be done convincingly on blue screen so long as you're using actual human actors. You'll just end up with talent like Ewan McGregor looking like Yubi Wan' Jablowmi? over and over again.
I have lived in the US for 26 years, have been to 30 states, have family in 10+, and have literally never met a single person who even comes close to "seeming to bear a grudge" against England.
I also stopped when I saw how, as an indicator of modern TV decline, the 60s had a senior marketing executive (apparently in contrast to now, when a show like Mad Men, about nothing but senior marketing executives, does not exist).