It's quite simple. If the uptight authorities don't do this, why, then you'd have teenagers all over the place taking naked pictures of themselves and passing them along. The whole world would be flooded with naked pics of teens!
Can you possible imagine what such a world would be like?
Don't forget the attorneys that launch frivolous lawsuits against the doctors and insurance companies to extract windfalls for clients and take 40%.
I can't believe you are all missing the biggest problem of all: regular people. Attorneys cannot begin a frivolous suit without a client willing to sue a doctor for some frivolous reason.
If Congress only has the powers specifically given to it by the Constitution, then what the heck is Article I, Section 9, doing in the Constitution? For those who don't want to make the jump, Section 9 includes the phrase No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. If the Constitution never gives Congress the power to grant titles of nobility, why did the framers even put that prohibition in the Constitution?
elected politicians have only the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution, period
Not technically true. For example, see the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution. If you disagree with my above reasoning, then the "necessary and proper" clause is mere superfluousness, which serves to make the Constitution appear to be a poorly-written document, highly suspect since it is a Constitution written by some of the most brilliant legal minds of the age. The alternative is that the "necessary and proper" clause says Congress has the authority to perform necessary actions and proper actions (as opposed to actions which are simultaneously both necessary and proper). In Medicaid's case, it has been deemed to be proper (and perhaps many would argue it is necessary as well). Beyond that, as I read Article I, Section 8, Subsection 1, Congress shall have Power To [...] provide for the [...] general Welfare of the United States, and what is the United States but a collection of people, many of whom need medical assistance.
Also, while many would argue the Preamble is not legally binding, but merely expository, if you are an original intent proponent, the Preamble states why the framers wrote the Constitution, and that includes in order to [...] promote the general welfare. Or did you never watch Schoolhouse Rock?;)
In any case, the Constitution only specifically grants Congress the ability to legislate three crimes: high-seas piracy, counterfeiting, and treason. Would you argue that it is a bad idea for the federal government to criminalize anything else is?.
We were limited to Casio and TI because they knew how to wipe those.
Heh. In high school I wrote a program for the TI 83+ (what we all used) that had the keystrokes for wiping the memory preprogrammed. I'd run that program before the teacher came to wipe the memory, she'd go through and wipe the memory, but she was really just running my program. Basically it was like if I had, in autoexec.bat back in the day, a basic program run which was
DO WHILE 1 < 2
INPUT "C:\>", LOOP
And when I say, "I'd run that program," what I really mean is, "I'd imagine myself running the program, but didn't have the balls to actually do it." I mean, that's cheating.
You could have actually asked them what they meant.
Yes, except for the fact that the Framers often did not agree on what the Constitution meant. See arguments over whether the US could charter a national bank or not.
Though that only matters if you care about original intent.
Exactly. I consider the Framers to be lawyers working for clients, US citizens to be the clients, and the Constitution to be a contract of sorts. What the lawyers write is irrelevant in Contract law. Instead, what the clients want and especially what the contract itself says, is important. Thus, to put it bluntly, who the fuck cares what went on at the Constitutional Conventions. It's like lawyers meeting to discuss the wording of the contract. It is irrelevant. What does the contract say at the end of the day? There's no official commentary (unlike, say, the Uniform Commercial Code). Thus, in my opinion, original intent is not even close to being a valid Constitutional philosophy, not merely because there was no such thing as one original intent, as we see from arguments between Hamilton and Madison (both Framers) over what the Constitution means after it had already been ratified.
Not to mention that the Articles of Confederation (the first Constitution of the US) makes our current Constitution illegal, since any law of the land under the Articles had to be unanimously approved by all 13 states, and the Constitution was not unanimously approved.
But you don't see Original Intenters bitching about how the Constitution violates the original intent of the AoC.
The Constitution is weird, screwy, and the history of the US is frought with reinterpretations of what it means.
Hell, I already don't believe half of what I just said;)
Any argument people will make about federalism is irrelevant here. The fact of the matter is that this change to a nationalized ID will cost the states a lot of money, and the federal government has no plans to assist with the funding. In Texas, we can already barely support our public schools, and Texas public secondaries are hardly the beacons of knowledge that I wish they were. If, for example, Texas has to fund a new ID system, there will be a huge financial burden placed on a state already stretched to the limit financially.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Let's check out one way to read that, by choosing to delegate that power to the people:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the people.
There we go. Now if the people decide to give that power of theirs to the national government by electing politicians to the legislature who create Medicare (or whatever over program you want to call into question), then the federal government now has the power to do so.
Believe it or not, the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power to perform judicial review. The Supreme Court is also not, strictly speaking, the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means (the Constitution never gives the Court this power). Both of those extremely important powers came from the Marshall Court in the early 1800s, with cases like Marbury v. Madison, and McCulloch v. Maryland.
Literally, the Chief Justice wrote, "Hey, we have the power to do this now," and everyone else went, "OK, I guess you do." If you look at what was going on at the time Marshall wrote the McCollough v. Maryland opinion, it was at a time Congress was just about to tear itself apart. In my opinion, the way the opinion reads is Marshall grabbed some new power for himself and his court, and challenged anyone else to take it away, knowing full well that the Congress was in no position to challenge his authority, since they knew any fighting would destroy the nation.
But that's just a theory. However, it does not remove the fact that the rationale I just used has been used since at least 1819 in the Supreme Court, and was even used by Founding Fathers in the 1790s to justify things.
Thank God for Constitutional Law, we have been talking about this all week.
Oh, don't start that crap, even if you're arguing for more freedom in the music business. If you use it here, that gives the RIAA the ability to use the same argument to claim that downloading MP3s is equivalent to stealing money from their bank account.
Because that CD was not intended only for you, and there are only a limited number of CDs pressed, the seller didn't lose money (someone else will come along and buy the record). Contract law will even back that reasoning up on this with cases like Neri v. Marine Retail Corp., and the Uniform Commercial Code 2-708.
Hu is probably just trying to find a reason to take down China Bounder's blog about his sex adventures with Chinese women. He pissed off a lot of people, some very powerful. After all, Chinese women are so innocent, and this dirty foreigner is corrupting them!
they also seemed to want to milk the buyer with 1h-2h content on a tape
I highly doubt that is why you only got a couple hours of video on a tape. If you record while passing the tape through the magnets at a faster rate (so less recording time per tape), you get higher quality video and audio as more magnetic tape is used to store the media. This is called SP. Read about it, as usual, on Wikipedia.
4. They answer HIGH expectations around a new iPod release (big criticism)
And this is why I expect a widescreen iPod announcement sometime this year. The author of the article argues that this phone will eat into iPod sales this year, because it's not supplementary, but rather a direct competitor to the iPod line. However, Apple has now proven that they have the desire and technical ability to put out a pretty-looking widescreen iPod. Now they just need to put out one with a large hard drive. I suspect this year will see an iPod 6G with widescreen and a very large hard drive (hasn't the hard drive manufacturer hit 100 or 120GB now?).
And if I'm wrong, at least I still get modded +5 Insightful;)
I think one of the reasons political speech with regards to campaigns is regulated/restricted is to prevent money from having too much of an effect on election results.
For those of you confused, it's in Article I, Section 8, "Scope of Legislative Power."
The Congress shall have power... [t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
I do, however, disagree with Trogre's statement that an amendment is of "questionable legality." Amendments are not of questionable legality (not even prohibition during its time). I direct you to Article V:
The Congress,... on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states... provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article...
The first and fourth sections of Article I refer to elections, how often to assemble, and the exclusivity of legislative power in the Congress. 3/4 of the states did indeed ratify the 3rd through 12th amendments proposed, creating the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights).
The only way you could claim the Bill of Rights is not legitimate is if you claim the Constitution itself has no legitimacy. However, since you implied support of the Constitution in your post, this is not a possible avenue of argument.
Therefore, under the assumption that the Constitution itself is valid, the Bill of Rights is valid, and thus legal.
No: affirmative defenses can be taken away quite easily by changes in legislation; however, if the legislators "try to take away Americans' rights," the shit (ideally) hits the fan. "Ideally" included because the past 5-6 years have shown otherwise.
Maybe Linus is one of those people for whom it will only matter very much when it bites him in the ass and it's too late to do anything about it.
No, he just knows that if Linux moved to GPLv3, a lot of companies would be forced to dump Linux for fear of creating distros which are incongruous with modern devices. Then Linux development would be stymied.
This is only my guess, though. I haven't followed the Linux-GPLv3-Novell-RedHat-etc. news lately.
Care to elaborate? I'm pretty sure I have great social skills, but if I don't, please enlighten me! I don't see how any part of my post alludes to a lack of social skills.
However, you could have made your post in jest; in that case, we can blame my mistake not on a lack of social skills, but on the fact that there is no intonation in text for me to use in judging your intent.
Just wait until the movies are compressed. An XviD encode of a 20 minute episode of The Office which is 960x544 is 350MB (290MB is video data, 60MB is audio). Double each dimension (to get approx. 1080p), and the filesize will grow, with 4x290MB+60MB=1220MB as an upper limit (of course, it will be smaller than this). Thus, two hours of XviD at 1080p would be, at most, 7320MB. Factor in 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 audio, and you still won't exceed the size of one dual layer DVD. Then, use the x264 codec instead of XviD, and you'll get an even smaller filesize at near the original source's quality. All on one dual layer DVD. With optimizations, the file size will shrink even further (multipass encoding, adjustments of the quantization, etc.). Presumably TV shows released online are only singlepass, as the competition seems to be who can get the show out the fastest (typically a few hours after the show comes on).
Actually, fair use is not Constitutionally guaranteed. It comes from the common law, and the first codification of it was in the Copyright Act of 1976. Additionally, it's an affirmative defense, not a right. I only point this out because, if Slashdotters want it to be a right instead of a defense against criminal or civil penalties, they should lobby for it instead of assuming it is already a right.
I'd really like to see you get modded down because you're spreading falsehoods, not being insightful.
I'm aware of Flemish; I think tennis star Kim Clijsters is from an area where it is spoken, and I used to hear the language's name batted around whenever she would play Justine Henin-Hardenne (from Walloon-speaking Belgium).
In any case, yes, the Spanish I wrote was, "No me gusta demencia," which is Spanish for "I do not like dementia," or, more literally, "Dementia does not please me." The verb is "gustar," and it (or something similar) appears in Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and probably the rest of the Romance languages.
Your typical geek/nerd may appear a bit unkempt not because of a conscious decision, but because of any related thoughts not even entering into their mind.
That's not being a geek; that's being out of touch with reality. They are not the same thing. There are plenty of nerds who have good social skills. I'd be careful about making broad brush strokes like you just have. What you are describing, really, is autism.
Most geeks/nerds today really aren't. It's just fashionable to be seen as such, somewhat.
Hallelujah! Finally the day has come in which it is fashionable to get your shit kicked in! *sigh* Your post just reeks of elitism: Only antisocial people are nerds, and everyone else who thinks he is 1337 really isn't. Just a poser. Not the, as you put it, "true geeks." HA!
I think what you meant to say was that most people in the computer science field are not geeks, but merely business-minded people who chased the big bucks during the dot com era and got stranded in a field in which they held very little interest after the bubble burst.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, while many would argue the Preamble is not legally binding, but merely expository, if you are an original intent proponent, the Preamble states why the framers wrote the Constitution, and that includes in order to [...] promote the general welfare. Or did you never watch Schoolhouse Rock?
In any case, the Constitution only specifically grants Congress the ability to legislate three crimes: high-seas piracy, counterfeiting, and treason. Would you argue that it is a bad idea for the federal government to criminalize anything else is?.
DO WHILE 1 < 2
INPUT "C:\>",
LOOP
And when I say, "I'd run that program," what I really mean is, "I'd imagine myself running the program, but didn't have the balls to actually do it." I mean, that's cheating.
Not to mention that the Articles of Confederation (the first Constitution of the US) makes our current Constitution illegal, since any law of the land under the Articles had to be unanimously approved by all 13 states, and the Constitution was not unanimously approved.
But you don't see Original Intenters bitching about how the Constitution violates the original intent of the AoC.
The Constitution is weird, screwy, and the history of the US is frought with reinterpretations of what it means.
Hell, I already don't believe half of what I just said
Any argument people will make about federalism is irrelevant here. The fact of the matter is that this change to a nationalized ID will cost the states a lot of money, and the federal government has no plans to assist with the funding. In Texas, we can already barely support our public schools, and Texas public secondaries are hardly the beacons of knowledge that I wish they were. If, for example, Texas has to fund a new ID system, there will be a huge financial burden placed on a state already stretched to the limit financially.
Believe it or not, the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power to perform judicial review. The Supreme Court is also not, strictly speaking, the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means (the Constitution never gives the Court this power). Both of those extremely important powers came from the Marshall Court in the early 1800s, with cases like Marbury v. Madison, and McCulloch v. Maryland.
Literally, the Chief Justice wrote, "Hey, we have the power to do this now," and everyone else went, "OK, I guess you do." If you look at what was going on at the time Marshall wrote the McCollough v. Maryland opinion, it was at a time Congress was just about to tear itself apart. In my opinion, the way the opinion reads is Marshall grabbed some new power for himself and his court, and challenged anyone else to take it away, knowing full well that the Congress was in no position to challenge his authority, since they knew any fighting would destroy the nation.
But that's just a theory. However, it does not remove the fact that the rationale I just used has been used since at least 1819 in the Supreme Court, and was even used by Founding Fathers in the 1790s to justify things.
Thank God for Constitutional Law, we have been talking about this all week.
Because that CD was not intended only for you, and there are only a limited number of CDs pressed, the seller didn't lose money (someone else will come along and buy the record). Contract law will even back that reasoning up on this with cases like Neri v. Marine Retail Corp., and the Uniform Commercial Code 2-708.
Hu is probably just trying to find a reason to take down China Bounder's blog about his sex adventures with Chinese women. He pissed off a lot of people, some very powerful. After all, Chinese women are so innocent, and this dirty foreigner is corrupting them!
And if I'm wrong, at least I still get modded +5 Insightful
I think one of the reasons political speech with regards to campaigns is regulated/restricted is to prevent money from having too much of an effect on election results.
I do, however, disagree with Trogre's statement that an amendment is of "questionable legality." Amendments are not of questionable legality (not even prohibition during its time). I direct you to Article V:
The first and fourth sections of Article I refer to elections, how often to assemble, and the exclusivity of legislative power in the Congress. 3/4 of the states did indeed ratify the 3rd through 12th amendments proposed, creating the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights).
The only way you could claim the Bill of Rights is not legitimate is if you claim the Constitution itself has no legitimacy. However, since you implied support of the Constitution in your post, this is not a possible avenue of argument.
Therefore, under the assumption that the Constitution itself is valid, the Bill of Rights is valid, and thus legal.
No: affirmative defenses can be taken away quite easily by changes in legislation; however, if the legislators "try to take away Americans' rights," the shit (ideally) hits the fan. "Ideally" included because the past 5-6 years have shown otherwise.
Sarcasm, anti-New Zealand emotions, bestiality, puns, funny imagery. Your post, sir, deserves so much more than a +5 Funny.
This is only my guess, though. I haven't followed the Linux-GPLv3-Novell-RedHat-etc. news lately.
However, you could have made your post in jest; in that case, we can blame my mistake not on a lack of social skills, but on the fact that there is no intonation in text for me to use in judging your intent.
Actually, it'd probably be classified as a design patent. Even computer icons can be protected by design patents.
Just wait until the movies are compressed. An XviD encode of a 20 minute episode of The Office which is 960x544 is 350MB (290MB is video data, 60MB is audio). Double each dimension (to get approx. 1080p), and the filesize will grow, with 4x290MB+60MB=1220MB as an upper limit (of course, it will be smaller than this). Thus, two hours of XviD at 1080p would be, at most, 7320MB. Factor in 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 audio, and you still won't exceed the size of one dual layer DVD. Then, use the x264 codec instead of XviD, and you'll get an even smaller filesize at near the original source's quality. All on one dual layer DVD. With optimizations, the file size will shrink even further (multipass encoding, adjustments of the quantization, etc.). Presumably TV shows released online are only singlepass, as the competition seems to be who can get the show out the fastest (typically a few hours after the show comes on).
Actually, fair use is not Constitutionally guaranteed. It comes from the common law, and the first codification of it was in the Copyright Act of 1976. Additionally, it's an affirmative defense, not a right. I only point this out because, if Slashdotters want it to be a right instead of a defense against criminal or civil penalties, they should lobby for it instead of assuming it is already a right.
I'd really like to see you get modded down because you're spreading falsehoods, not being insightful.
I'm aware of Flemish; I think tennis star Kim Clijsters is from an area where it is spoken, and I used to hear the language's name batted around whenever she would play Justine Henin-Hardenne (from Walloon-speaking Belgium).
In any case, yes, the Spanish I wrote was, "No me gusta demencia," which is Spanish for "I do not like dementia," or, more literally, "Dementia does not please me." The verb is "gustar," and it (or something similar) appears in Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and probably the rest of the Romance languages.
Hallelujah! Finally the day has come in which it is fashionable to get your shit kicked in! *sigh* Your post just reeks of elitism: Only antisocial people are nerds, and everyone else who thinks he is 1337 really isn't. Just a poser. Not the, as you put it, "true geeks." HA!
I think what you meant to say was that most people in the computer science field are not geeks, but merely business-minded people who chased the big bucks during the dot com era and got stranded in a field in which they held very little interest after the bubble burst.