The laws are not designed to protect exploiters, but to protect the inocent.
The problem is primacy. What is more important? That someone's feelings were hurt, or that someone was unable to speak when it was important? Obviously, the latter is far more important, and that's why the 1st amendment is written in so uncompromising a manner (and it is also why the 14th amendment has been accepted to mean that the states can't mess with the bill of rights, that is, amendments one through ten.
As for your GF, if she's good, let her know she can apply to work in my law office.:)
the Bill of Rights says is that "Congress" has no right to pass laws abridging the freedom of speech. It says nothing about the State of Texas.
Ah, sorry, upon re-reading, I'm afraid I missed the focus of your comment. Mea Culpa. However, you're still incorrect. That's because of amendment 14, which contains the following text:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]), the Supreme Court accepted the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights. What that means, in a nutshell, is that no state -- not even Texas -- can mess with amendments 1 through 10, even though at first glance they appear to apply only to the feds because they start with "Congress shall make no law..."
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.
The 1st amendment prohibits government, non-exclusively, from making any law that restricts speech. That means even retarded old Texas, land of the "you can't talk about what that dildo is for" lawmakers, can't legitimately make any law that limits speech. Your state government is first based upon the constitution, and secondly upon its own structure, whatever that may be, as long as it does not violate the constitution.
Again, don't mistake me for arguing that such laws don't exist. They do. I am arguing that they are illegitimate, which is a different argument altogether.
Of course, I think your arguments are full of crap.
And I enthusiastically support your right to think so. It'd just be slightly more interesting if you could support your position, that's all.:-)
You're confused and mischaracterizing what I said. I'll recap, succinctly, for you:
If person A yells "fire", and person B tramples person C, person B is the one who has done something harmful. Not person A. This is because responsibility extends to direct consequences of your actions. Person A made the air vibrate, indulging in free speech. Person B broke someone's clavicle or something. Person B is probably guilty of assault or something along those lines. Person A is (perhaps) guilty of being a cretin, certainly no more than that.
I will re-cast the entire argument to: Person A is the school principal, person B is some kid in seventh grade, and person C is the kid in front of person B. Person A yells "Fire!" by setting off the alarm, announcing over the PA, whatever. Subsequently, person B runs over person C. Then, all of a sudden, we realize that person B needs to go to the office and get the strap for running over person C, and the principal is completely in the right for calling the fire drill. Funny how that is, eh?
Finally, I am well aware of the state of US law on this matter; what I am saying is that the law is wrong. There is no constitutional authority that allows the dilution of free speech in any venue whatsoever. That means no law can legitimately be created that does so, nor can any court, or the executive, impose such a thing without stepping outside of their legitimate authority, because these arms of the government also 100% depend on the constitution for the legitimacy of each and every action they take. End of story.
And here, the respondents have assumed the right/authority of the victim to represent her own sexuality and lifestyle in public... infringes on their rights in a profound manner.
Oh, poppycock. The "victim", as you mistakenly characterize her, can assert her sexuality in public all she wants. So she has not lost, or otherwise had reduced, any such "right." She can counter the posted site with speech of her own, in whatever form, and she can describe the perpetrators of the site as social retards who have sex with box turtles if she likes. Speech is utterly unrestricted for both parties. That's the position of the constitution, and the constitution is what underlies the government's ability to make law. Since you appear to be unfamiliar with the constitution, let me first tell you precisely what it is (because most people really don't know, having never looked at it in that light): It is the constituting authority for the government (in other words, the documentation that specifies what things the government can and cannot do), and secondly quote the entire relevant portion (1st amendment) to you, suitably emphasized (not to worry, it's very short):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, I understand you don't like it, as you are clearly one of those who thinks the government is your mommy and should step in if that nasty boy down the street calls you names, but I have to tell you that this is not a valid governmental role. The government is not there to save you from people who call you names, say you hump sheep, or mis-characterize a position you hold. This is because the constituting authority for the government forbids it from creating legislation that authorizes it to do this. Therefore (hang in there) when it does create such legislation, the government is operating illegally. The reason (and this is just my opinion, gleaned from reading the founding father's papers other than the constitution itself) for this seems to be that they thought that the liberty to say what a person wants to say, when they want to say it, no matter what it is, was a lot more important than, for instance, your feelings.
Now, given that you want the courts to be everyone's momma, there is a way for you to legitimize this. That is to change the constituting authority for the government such that it allows the government to make such law. There is a procedure for this, and (surprise!) it is also written down in the constitution. That is article V (five) of the constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, 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, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
So there you have it. Don't blame me. Blame those nasty founding fathers who thought that you should be man enough to laugh it off if some social retard says something nasty or untrue about you.
Is it okay to faulsy represent yourself, esepcially to the conscious harm of another party?
If you cause harm, the harm won't be in the speech. The harm is in the stealing of the money, the false arrest, the concrete problems that you cause. Saying "I am Johnny" when you are Fred is just speech. Saying, "here's my credit card" when it is Fred's leads to the crime, which is the card being charged without Johnny's agreement, and that is theft, and that's the only law you need here.
There's nothing wrong with assuming any identity you like. Where you get into legitimate trouble is when you assume property and/or authority and/or rights that are not yours to assume. And, of course, there are laws against that, and that's all there need to be. As you see, speech is not the problem. It never was the problem. It's just an illegitimate teat for lawyers to suck upon.
While I hate to bring up the old cliché of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one
Good; because that cliche isn't valid, and never was. There is no harm in yelling fire. There is no harm in filing out of a building that isn't burning, There is no harm in filing back in. These are the acts of reasonable people. In fact, the practice would do people some good. We used to do it all the time in school. The fire alarm would go off, and out we'd go, not knowing if there was a fire, or not. No one ever got trampled. The theatre owner has, as an owner of a private business, the option to no longer serve that customer. Of course, should one patron fail to file out reasonably, and in the process trample another, then a crime has been committed, that of assault by that patron upon another. The idea that it is acceptable for people to trample one another — or that it somehow "isn't their fault" — is just one of the things that is wrong with the cliche, aside from the initial, completely incorrect, idea that one could not yell fire — or anything else — in a crowded theater. It's socially retarded, and if it were *my* theatre, it'd be the last time you ever got in the door, but other than that, there you go. Free speech trumps all. Every time. That's the basis of liberty.
Can speech lead to secondary consequences? Sure. Those consequences may be actionable, and reasonably so, but the speech itself is not, and cannot be.
An example of secondary consequences: A fire truck is called. The person who called the truck is liable for the expense. If there is no fire, then there you have it. Worse, if the fire truck is not available for a real fire, then the person who called them is liable for issues there if it appears that the presence of the truck in the wrong place is complicit in the damage. You can't request a service and not be liable for the consequences. You're making a contract, albeit a verbal one.
The problem with the US is that the idea of responsibility has gotten very, very twisted.
While it's been a while since I last read the Constitution, their meaning of free speech was with regards to criticism of the government; that's to say, you're Constitutionally guaranteed to be able to speak of your hatred of the country's leaders without fear of legal action being taken against you.
Well, it's been about five minutes since I last read it, and you are wrong.There are no caveats, limitations, etc. It says congress shall make no law. That's it. Nothing else. No "except whens", no "other thans", no "only in the case ofs", etc. No law. Until or unless this is changed, using the only procedures allowed to change it, that's the only legitimate position for the government. No law.
Tort laws (specifically those in regards to slander and libel) are designed to prevent this.
No. They're a complete waste of paper giving lawyers something to do. Pay attention now: If people decide to run me out of town on a rail, there are laws against that already. That's illegal, and rightfully so, because I am entitled to a fair trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Anyone can say anything they like, it does me no harm at all. Running me out of town does me harm, but as I say, there are remedies for morons who would undertake such an action. There is no need to limit speech because morons might do something bad. What you need to do is control the morons.
If you care to find me a case where a libel or slander accusation was thrown out on the basis of the law being unconstitutional, please let me know, because I can promise you that this isn't the first libel case ever made, and won't be the last.
I'm not claiming the courts do the right thing here, I'm just telling you what the right thing is. The courts are long out of control and need
Uh...huh? Parents aren't allowed to beat their children, it's (rightly) considered a crime of violence.
That, I'm afraid, is 100% debatable. That attitude is politically correct, and that's about all it has going for it. There are times when a well-executed beating (or other severe physical punishment) is not only appropriate, but by far the best choice. For instance, if one of my boys had held his sister's hand to the stove, the first thing I'd do is hold his hand to the stove. There is no adequate California-style wishy-washy substitute for understanding the harm you have done as compared to having that harm done to you.
Having said that, I raised three boys, I had no such problems, all three are PhD's, millionaires as a result of their own efforts, black belts, and strong charitable givers. If you parent well, your odds of avoiding these types of foolishness are much better.
...but if I see a myspace page that says that `I am a lesbian' and has a name and picture and such, I would probably tend to believe that this person is a lesbian.
Then you're a total, utter dumbass. You read it on myspace, so you believe it. Hoo-hah! "IT was on teh Interweb, so's I believes it! Glory Be, it EVEN had a PITTCHUR!" Brother. No wonder the country is so screwed up. Isn't there a pill you can take to add a few IQ points? Maybe just take up drinking coffee? Green Tea? You need something, anyway. Free tip for you: If some claim is on the Internet, this in no wise means that said claim in any way represents reality. Until you wrap your head around that, you're a mental cripple.
No, you miss the point. No law.That is the point. The government has no authority to limit speech whatsoever. The government's authority comes entirely from the constitution. That's what "constitution" means; "Here's how you mustconstitute the government in order for the government to be legitimate." The critical importance of being able to say what you wish to say, precisely how, where, and when you wish to say it, totally and absolutely trumps all other considerations. The framers of the first amendment meant to do that, and nothing less. Unfortunately, people who think the government should be their "mommy" do not understand this. Many years of government degeneration have left a lot of people with the entirely mistaken idea that the government exists to protect them from free expression. We see this everywhere. The FCC. Libel laws. Shouting "fire" in a theatre laws. Hand-wringing religionists. etc.
All legitimate remedies for speech that is offensive are social. Not legal. No legitimate law can exist in this realm until or unless a constitutional convention is held. In the meantime, this is part of the large area where the government is acting outside its legitimate authority. No more, no less.
More importantly, it is covered by tort law - libel, to be specific
Those laws are mommy laws; they're not legitimate in any case. The constitution says:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech
There is absolutely nothing unclear about that. "Libel" law abridges freedom of speech, therefore it is 100% unconstitutional, period, end of story.
The underlying principle of parents being responsible for their children's illegal actions is a reasonable one, but in this case, the children are acting within the control limits set by the government's only legitimate constituting authority, and that in turn means that legitimate remedies are limited to the social realm. In other words, the principle can take a rousing dislike to these kids, describe their behavior as sub-optimal (or simply call them dorks), etc.
Having said all that, the government certainly has stolen the power it needs to step in here; but that doesn't make it right.
Since I have a laptop with an internet connection via my cell phone, I thought I could use Google in my car.
Maybe. For instance, say you're driving about halfway between Billings, Montana, and Glasgow, Montana. There is often no cell phone coverage. Where there is, you're roaming and you're going to pay a hell of a lot per minute to connect long distance + roaming, assuming you have a modem (these are analog towers.) There is no wifi coverage, and the digital towers are few and far between up there. On this trip, even where there is cell phone coverage, your network isn't supported; this is all co-ops.
...and having network access doesn't solve most of those issues, anyway. Because a map tells you the layout of the land; a GPS does that too, but it also tells you where you are, which is a whole different barrel of information. There is no subscription fee for GPS, either.... just the initial cost of the unit. Adding services to cellphones isn't the optimum choice here. A real GPS system will serve up enormous convenience for very little investment. The day it leads you to the nearest gas station in a rural area instead of letting you get stranded on a back road will be the day you think it's worth anything they ask for it, though.:)
No, the idiom is "toe the line." Look it up. The net being what it is, you'll find a couple of percent of the sites will have it as "tow" (because they're confused or illiterate) but the vast majority have it right.
As for the rest, you're entitled to your opinions, of course.
When you move out of your mom's basement, you'll learn that ultra-high technology has a small premium (about $500 and up, in this case.) You'll need to get a job, develop a budget, you know, grown-up stuff like that. Until then, don't worry about it. For anyone else:
Try to navigate while driving.
Google Map: You run into the car in front of you.
GPS: While driving with your eyes on the road and traffic, it speaks up and says "Turn right in 500 feet." Because you were in the wrong lane, you miss the turn. GPS says "re-routing", and a few seconds later, says, turn right in one mile, then bear left", getting you right back on track. No sweat.
You don't know what you'll want to do when you get to your destination city.
Google Map: Pick your resolution for your whole trip; maybe print several pages to sort through
GPS: When you reach your destination city, say, or tap, "zoom in" and continue.
You'll need restaurant, museum, park, attraction, theatre info.
Google Map: You print all the icons for everything. It's a mess.
GPS: Turn on, or ask, for restaurants. There they are. With distances. Ask for Italian. There they are. Mmmm!
You decide to visit a friend. You have the address in your PDA.
Google Map: Is it on the map? No. Ooops.
GPS: You pull over, tap in the address, it takes you right to the house. Even if it's in the next state!
You're on your trip. Decide to take a side trip to a national monument.
Google Map: Not on the map. Oops.
GPS: Say or type it in, and off you go.
Want to wander around the back roads.
Google Map: Wrong resolution. No back roads.
GPS: Zoom in or change the settings.
You want to know trip stats.
Google Map: Uh....
GPS: MPG, average speed, max speed, time idling, time to next waypoint, etc.
You find the sun is in your eyes. How to plan around that?
Google Map: Uh...
GPS: Exact local sunrise/sunset times always available. Accurately plan a leisurely meal or shopping trip, then continue.
You want to know where you are, as opposed to where you are going.
Google map: Better ask someone.
GPS: You are here, going this direction, next intersection is this, time to next waypoint is this.
It's dark. Where are you, and what to do next?
Google map: Get out your flashlight and pull over. Guess. Fuss. You may be wrong.
GPS: Illuminated, night-sensitive dim/color change display changes at sunset. Perfect.
You're on a great lake Canada-US ferry. But where on the lake are you?
Google Map: Duh...
GPS: You are here, proceeding at X knots/mph, time to port is this.
It's late at night. You got off the highway to get some gas, and had to wander about in the endless urban darkness of Indiana below Chicago on a maze of one-way streets for half an hour to find fuel. You got gas from an all-night credit card pump. Now how do you find your highway again?
Google Map: You're gonna run out of gas before you find it again. And then get mugged.
GPS: Just do what it tells you to. It knows where you are, and where you're going. Piece of cake.
Out hiking, your kid finds some neat rocks in a field, or discovers a cave in rural Kentucky.
Google Map: You'll never, ever find this place again. Tough luck.
GPS: Tap "Mark Waypoint" and you'll come right back to it — even from China.
Google maps when going on a trip in your car, maybe
Get a decent GPS. End of need for paper maps. Period. My GPS can get me there, find me lodging, food, entertainment, landmarks, let me explore... Modern GPS systems are mind-blowing. They make it a lot more fun to drive, as well,
Seems like it deserves an answer. No. I am a different kind of scientist; I'm an AI researcher working on tying emotional and other "tones" to memory. I employ several other PhD's in that pursuit. I also own and manage several businesses: A literary agency, a software company, a martial arts studio (I'm an instructor there), a recording studio (musician and recording engineer), and a lingerie (stockings) store. So you might say I'm somewhat diversified.
I have a broad interest in science, bleeding edge and otherwise, and I try to pay attention.
...funny how hard they're trying to come up with one, them.:)
Actually, there is. It's called inflation,
I said "come about": That means, the conditions that led to it, not how it progressed once it was under way.
Why is it I always see this argument brought up?
I suspect you see it because it is a valid argument.
tow(sic) some kind of party line
"toe"
Do you really think that oil companies and republican think tanks aren't paying as well universities?... To what end? For what reason? What do they have to gain?
Tenure, funding, pride of place at cocktail parties, self-respect. They're human, you know. Your argument of funding from oil companies is pitiful. No serious scientist wants that; that's a good way to have, for instance, some dweeb on slashdot (or some politico in Washington) to point at your research and say "see, it's OBVIOUSLY biased!"
I said "cope", I didn't say "resolve" or "solve". You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Oh man how I love to prove people wrong. Volcanoes actually cool down the atmosphere because of the aerosols they spray in the air. That's because of a volcanic eruption that we had a year without a summer
Well, then again — you'll need to pay considerably better attention. I said "you'll see a temperature swing", I didn't say "you'll see warming." Further, if you'll read the rest of my posts, I made specific reference to this. Maybe you should wipe the foam from your lips, take a deep breath, and see if you can figure out what I actually wrote means, as opposed to what you imagine I might have said.
Without going into a great deal of detail, let me provide a couple of pointers you can use to begin hunting stuff up on the net.
First, with regard to storage of nuclear waste. Passivated glass block storage solves all the storage problems. The waste is distributed in the block, the block will last longer than the waste's dangerous lifespan, the production of the block is easy and the stored materials will neither erode, progress chemically, or distribute themselves through the environment any other way. The technology is here now, and all it takes is using it to resolve the problem. In other words, money. The only down side is that once in said glass block, the "waste" is really waste, that is, we can't use it for anything else. This may not be optimum.
Second, with regard to accidents, modern reactor designs don't have those same kinds of problems. Neither do smaller, low-ish power reactors. For instance, look up pebble bed reactors. Good design is important.
Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.
There have been some really exceptional flares recently, X-class and basically darned near off the scale (X22(!), in 2001 if memory serves.) We've been lucky enough to miss a direct hit from the worst of them, but clearly, old sol is having a bit of a temper tantrum, at least when you consider the narrow environmental window we can survive within. As a ham radio operator, I've been carefully watching, and been directly affected by, the 11-ish year solar cycle for the last fifty years, and I can tell you that the atmosphere's behavior today in terms of propagation is not even remotely similar to the way it was when I first began paying attention. This is essentially a direct the result of solar activity, and of little else, as near as anyone has been able to figure out. So I'm inclined to be doubtful when anyone says that solar input to the planet isn't changing, based on my own observations, for which I have logs dating back to the late fifties.
But there is no theory to explain the observed climate changes based on natural cycles alone.
This does not mean that we are not seeing a natural cycle. There is no validated theory connecting quantum and macro level activity, either, but that doesn't mean it isn't connected. There is no theory that definitively explains how a "big bang" could come about, yet it may be the case, and so on. The bottom line is, nature doesn't give a hoot for our theories, it does what it does despite what we believe. Theories are our best shot at trying to understand what is going on. But in many cases -- how brains work, what intelligence means, interesting details about gravity, and yes, climate, theory is not really very well nailed down.
The fact that in the geological record, CO2 increases lag warming periods by quite a bit puts at least some reasonable doubt on it as a causative agent, per se. Dust, on the other hand, is a known causative agent (see 1816, AKA the "year without a summer" for a seminal example.) It may well be that particulates are a far greater villain in the end. Certainly the more recent records (last millennium or so) favors this outlook.
Look, it is perfectly reasonable to argue for reduction of emissions. We have lots of right here, right now, reasons to so argue. Acid rain. Particulate levels of various unfriendly materials. Radioactivity from burning coal. Simple visibility beyond a mile or so in urban areas. Why not stick with what we actually know instead of creating a cult of "CO2 is the Evil Heat God" worshipers out of what is really pretty doubtful (and ass backwards in terms of causality) theory? Maybe a hundred years from now we'll have a handle on climate. Maybe (though I personally doubt it) on weather as well. But clearly, we do not today, and it seems quite ridiculous to get in a froth over such doubtful science.
And then there's the whole "politically correct" factor; there is no question that speaking against the climate change faction is not any way to get funding, to get published, or even to get invited to a party. That's got a very bad smell when it applies to science. We're supposed to make predictions from the data, not match the data to our predictions, no matter what the outside influences are. I fear climate science has done very poorly in this regard. From strident predictions of an "immanent ice age" to "we're all gonna fry!" within the space of a few decades is a real bell-ringer. It seems to me that these folks need to spend a little more time looking at what is happening before we should pay them a whole lot of attention in terms of them having the definitive scoop on what's going to happen... or not.
The only extinction I really expect to see is that of the reputations of "scientists" who harp on CO2 emissions when CO2 is a very small part of the overall picture; Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.
We have every reason to reduce emissions. I'm absolutely pro-emission-reduction; cleaner air is better for every living thing and that's a perfectly good justification to swing me. However, bogus, over-hyped faux "science" just serves to give the opponents somewhere to stand and take a swing at the "scientists."
The fact is, we've been warmer, and we've been colder, and CO2 is not the be-all, end-all index of why it is cold or hot. For instance, just let a major volcano erupt and you'll see a temperature swing that'll get your attention. Or let methane generation get completely out of hand, that'll put CO2 in perspective for you.
Aside from all that, we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will. Barring asteroid impacts, of course.
Very interesting. The question is, from the point of view of the VC, what does "light" mean.
For instance, I had a need for some database functionality in our image processing product. Handling EXIF fields and general (and unpredictable) other records for a thumbnail database that could be any size based on filesystem limits. I wrote a database system that supports the subset of SQL that I needed (create, insert, delete, undelete, pack, update, select) in about 20k (bytes, not lines. 860 lines.) No external dependencies at all in terms of libraries or OPC (Other People's Code), does just what we required. Self-contained to the point where you can drop the module on a web server, for instance, and use the database system there with no changes at all. Took about two days to spec it, write it from scratch and document it. To me, that's reasonably "light." Things inevitably get "heavy" when you try to include everything everyone likes and/or might need in just about any possible situation.
Were I into pursuing this, the first thing I'd ask is for the VC's definition of "light", and I would inquire as to what the requirements were, or else ask what they could live without. You don't even consider going into something like this without a pretty clear roadmap. Another thing is that given the size of the offering (three million, which you probably need to figure you'll get to keep about half of what's left after your expenses, after Uncle Sugar has finished savaging you), you have to know you're not on the hook to provide a huge, complex product. Three million isn't enough to fund a big product, not to mention maintenance, it's just that simple. And they did make it reasonably clear that a big product wasn't what they were after. I would say that unless the three million is just to get you to put your foot in the door, something like PostgreSQL is "right out" as Monty Python would have it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is primacy. What is more important? That someone's feelings were hurt, or that someone was unable to speak when it was important? Obviously, the latter is far more important, and that's why the 1st amendment is written in so uncompromising a manner (and it is also why the 14th amendment has been accepted to mean that the states can't mess with the bill of rights, that is, amendments one through ten.
As for your GF, if she's good, let her know she can apply to work in my law office. :)
Ah, sorry, upon re-reading, I'm afraid I missed the focus of your comment. Mea Culpa. However, you're still incorrect. That's because of amendment 14, which contains the following text:
In Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]), the Supreme Court accepted the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights. What that means, in a nutshell, is that no state -- not even Texas -- can mess with amendments 1 through 10, even though at first glance they appear to apply only to the feds because they start with "Congress shall make no law..."
[tips hat]
Sorry pardner, Amendment X:
The 1st amendment prohibits government, non-exclusively, from making any law that restricts speech. That means even retarded old Texas, land of the "you can't talk about what that dildo is for" lawmakers, can't legitimately make any law that limits speech. Your state government is first based upon the constitution, and secondly upon its own structure, whatever that may be, as long as it does not violate the constitution.
Again, don't mistake me for arguing that such laws don't exist. They do. I am arguing that they are illegitimate, which is a different argument altogether.
And I enthusiastically support your right to think so. It'd just be slightly more interesting if you could support your position, that's all. :-)
You're confused and mischaracterizing what I said. I'll recap, succinctly, for you:
If person A yells "fire", and person B tramples person C, person B is the one who has done something harmful. Not person A. This is because responsibility extends to direct consequences of your actions. Person A made the air vibrate, indulging in free speech. Person B broke someone's clavicle or something. Person B is probably guilty of assault or something along those lines. Person A is (perhaps) guilty of being a cretin, certainly no more than that.
I will re-cast the entire argument to: Person A is the school principal, person B is some kid in seventh grade, and person C is the kid in front of person B. Person A yells "Fire!" by setting off the alarm, announcing over the PA, whatever. Subsequently, person B runs over person C. Then, all of a sudden, we realize that person B needs to go to the office and get the strap for running over person C, and the principal is completely in the right for calling the fire drill. Funny how that is, eh?
Finally, I am well aware of the state of US law on this matter; what I am saying is that the law is wrong. There is no constitutional authority that allows the dilution of free speech in any venue whatsoever. That means no law can legitimately be created that does so, nor can any court, or the executive, impose such a thing without stepping outside of their legitimate authority, because these arms of the government also 100% depend on the constitution for the legitimacy of each and every action they take. End of story.
Don't like it? See article V.
Oh, poppycock. The "victim", as you mistakenly characterize her, can assert her sexuality in public all she wants. So she has not lost, or otherwise had reduced, any such "right." She can counter the posted site with speech of her own, in whatever form, and she can describe the perpetrators of the site as social retards who have sex with box turtles if she likes. Speech is utterly unrestricted for both parties. That's the position of the constitution, and the constitution is what underlies the government's ability to make law. Since you appear to be unfamiliar with the constitution, let me first tell you precisely what it is (because most people really don't know, having never looked at it in that light): It is the constituting authority for the government (in other words, the documentation that specifies what things the government can and cannot do), and secondly quote the entire relevant portion (1st amendment) to you, suitably emphasized (not to worry, it's very short):
Now, I understand you don't like it, as you are clearly one of those who thinks the government is your mommy and should step in if that nasty boy down the street calls you names, but I have to tell you that this is not a valid governmental role. The government is not there to save you from people who call you names, say you hump sheep, or mis-characterize a position you hold. This is because the constituting authority for the government forbids it from creating legislation that authorizes it to do this. Therefore (hang in there) when it does create such legislation, the government is operating illegally. The reason (and this is just my opinion, gleaned from reading the founding father's papers other than the constitution itself) for this seems to be that they thought that the liberty to say what a person wants to say, when they want to say it, no matter what it is, was a lot more important than, for instance, your feelings.
Now, given that you want the courts to be everyone's momma, there is a way for you to legitimize this. That is to change the constituting authority for the government such that it allows the government to make such law. There is a procedure for this, and (surprise!) it is also written down in the constitution. That is article V (five) of the constitution:
So there you have it. Don't blame me. Blame those nasty founding fathers who thought that you should be man enough to laugh it off if some social retard says something nasty or untrue about you.
No problem. I understand "jerk" to be the best metaphor you could come up with for "yeah, I see you're absolutely right."
If you cause harm, the harm won't be in the speech. The harm is in the stealing of the money, the false arrest, the concrete problems that you cause. Saying "I am Johnny" when you are Fred is just speech. Saying, "here's my credit card" when it is Fred's leads to the crime, which is the card being charged without Johnny's agreement, and that is theft, and that's the only law you need here.
There's nothing wrong with assuming any identity you like. Where you get into legitimate trouble is when you assume property and/or authority and/or rights that are not yours to assume. And, of course, there are laws against that, and that's all there need to be. As you see, speech is not the problem. It never was the problem. It's just an illegitimate teat for lawyers to suck upon.
Good; because that cliche isn't valid, and never was. There is no harm in yelling fire. There is no harm in filing out of a building that isn't burning, There is no harm in filing back in. These are the acts of reasonable people. In fact, the practice would do people some good. We used to do it all the time in school. The fire alarm would go off, and out we'd go, not knowing if there was a fire, or not. No one ever got trampled. The theatre owner has, as an owner of a private business, the option to no longer serve that customer. Of course, should one patron fail to file out reasonably, and in the process trample another, then a crime has been committed, that of assault by that patron upon another. The idea that it is acceptable for people to trample one another — or that it somehow "isn't their fault" — is just one of the things that is wrong with the cliche, aside from the initial, completely incorrect, idea that one could not yell fire — or anything else — in a crowded theater. It's socially retarded, and if it were *my* theatre, it'd be the last time you ever got in the door, but other than that, there you go. Free speech trumps all. Every time. That's the basis of liberty.
Can speech lead to secondary consequences? Sure. Those consequences may be actionable, and reasonably so, but the speech itself is not, and cannot be.
An example of secondary consequences: A fire truck is called. The person who called the truck is liable for the expense. If there is no fire, then there you have it. Worse, if the fire truck is not available for a real fire, then the person who called them is liable for issues there if it appears that the presence of the truck in the wrong place is complicit in the damage. You can't request a service and not be liable for the consequences. You're making a contract, albeit a verbal one.
The problem with the US is that the idea of responsibility has gotten very, very twisted.
Well, it's been about five minutes since I last read it, and you are wrong.There are no caveats, limitations, etc. It says congress shall make no law. That's it. Nothing else. No "except whens", no "other thans", no "only in the case ofs", etc. No law. Until or unless this is changed, using the only procedures allowed to change it, that's the only legitimate position for the government. No law.
No. They're a complete waste of paper giving lawyers something to do. Pay attention now: If people decide to run me out of town on a rail, there are laws against that already. That's illegal, and rightfully so, because I am entitled to a fair trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Anyone can say anything they like, it does me no harm at all. Running me out of town does me harm, but as I say, there are remedies for morons who would undertake such an action. There is no need to limit speech because morons might do something bad. What you need to do is control the morons.
I'm not claiming the courts do the right thing here, I'm just telling you what the right thing is. The courts are long out of control and need
That, I'm afraid, is 100% debatable. That attitude is politically correct, and that's about all it has going for it. There are times when a well-executed beating (or other severe physical punishment) is not only appropriate, but by far the best choice. For instance, if one of my boys had held his sister's hand to the stove, the first thing I'd do is hold his hand to the stove. There is no adequate California-style wishy-washy substitute for understanding the harm you have done as compared to having that harm done to you.
Having said that, I raised three boys, I had no such problems, all three are PhD's, millionaires as a result of their own efforts, black belts, and strong charitable givers. If you parent well, your odds of avoiding these types of foolishness are much better.
Then you're a total, utter dumbass. You read it on myspace, so you believe it. Hoo-hah! "IT was on teh Interweb, so's I believes it! Glory Be, it EVEN had a PITTCHUR!" Brother. No wonder the country is so screwed up. Isn't there a pill you can take to add a few IQ points? Maybe just take up drinking coffee? Green Tea? You need something, anyway. Free tip for you: If some claim is on the Internet, this in no wise means that said claim in any way represents reality. Until you wrap your head around that, you're a mental cripple.
You might look really cute in a hat, though... :-)
No, you miss the point. No law. That is the point. The government has no authority to limit speech whatsoever. The government's authority comes entirely from the constitution. That's what "constitution" means; "Here's how you must constitute the government in order for the government to be legitimate." The critical importance of being able to say what you wish to say, precisely how, where, and when you wish to say it, totally and absolutely trumps all other considerations. The framers of the first amendment meant to do that, and nothing less. Unfortunately, people who think the government should be their "mommy" do not understand this. Many years of government degeneration have left a lot of people with the entirely mistaken idea that the government exists to protect them from free expression. We see this everywhere. The FCC. Libel laws. Shouting "fire" in a theatre laws. Hand-wringing religionists. etc.
All legitimate remedies for speech that is offensive are social. Not legal. No legitimate law can exist in this realm until or unless a constitutional convention is held. In the meantime, this is part of the large area where the government is acting outside its legitimate authority. No more, no less.
Those laws are mommy laws; they're not legitimate in any case. The constitution says: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech There is absolutely nothing unclear about that. "Libel" law abridges freedom of speech, therefore it is 100% unconstitutional, period, end of story.
The underlying principle of parents being responsible for their children's illegal actions is a reasonable one, but in this case, the children are acting within the control limits set by the government's only legitimate constituting authority, and that in turn means that legitimate remedies are limited to the social realm. In other words, the principle can take a rousing dislike to these kids, describe their behavior as sub-optimal (or simply call them dorks), etc.
Having said all that, the government certainly has stolen the power it needs to step in here; but that doesn't make it right.
Maybe. For instance, say you're driving about halfway between Billings, Montana, and Glasgow, Montana. There is often no cell phone coverage. Where there is, you're roaming and you're going to pay a hell of a lot per minute to connect long distance + roaming, assuming you have a modem (these are analog towers.) There is no wifi coverage, and the digital towers are few and far between up there. On this trip, even where there is cell phone coverage, your network isn't supported; this is all co-ops.
No, the idiom is "toe the line." Look it up. The net being what it is, you'll find a couple of percent of the sites will have it as "tow" (because they're confused or illiterate) but the vast majority have it right.
As for the rest, you're entitled to your opinions, of course.
When you move out of your mom's basement, you'll learn that ultra-high technology has a small premium (about $500 and up, in this case.) You'll need to get a job, develop a budget, you know, grown-up stuff like that. Until then, don't worry about it. For anyone else:
Try to navigate while driving.
Google Map: You run into the car in front of you.
GPS: While driving with your eyes on the road and traffic, it speaks up and says "Turn right in 500 feet." Because you were in the wrong lane, you miss the turn. GPS says "re-routing", and a few seconds later, says, turn right in one mile, then bear left", getting you right back on track. No sweat.
You don't know what you'll want to do when you get to your destination city.
Google Map: Pick your resolution for your whole trip; maybe print several pages to sort through
GPS: When you reach your destination city, say, or tap, "zoom in" and continue.
You'll need restaurant, museum, park, attraction, theatre info.
Google Map: You print all the icons for everything. It's a mess.
GPS: Turn on, or ask, for restaurants. There they are. With distances. Ask for Italian. There they are. Mmmm!
You decide to visit a friend. You have the address in your PDA.
Google Map: Is it on the map? No. Ooops.
GPS: You pull over, tap in the address, it takes you right to the house. Even if it's in the next state!
You're on your trip. Decide to take a side trip to a national monument.
Google Map: Not on the map. Oops.
GPS: Say or type it in, and off you go.
Want to wander around the back roads.
Google Map: Wrong resolution. No back roads.
GPS: Zoom in or change the settings.
You want to know trip stats.
Google Map: Uh....
GPS: MPG, average speed, max speed, time idling, time to next waypoint, etc.
You find the sun is in your eyes. How to plan around that?
Google Map: Uh...
GPS: Exact local sunrise/sunset times always available. Accurately plan a leisurely meal or shopping trip, then continue.
You want to know where you are, as opposed to where you are going.
Google map: Better ask someone.
GPS: You are here, going this direction, next intersection is this, time to next waypoint is this.
It's dark. Where are you, and what to do next?
Google map: Get out your flashlight and pull over. Guess. Fuss. You may be wrong.
GPS: Illuminated, night-sensitive dim/color change display changes at sunset. Perfect.
You're on a great lake Canada-US ferry. But where on the lake are you?
Google Map: Duh...
GPS: You are here, proceeding at X knots/mph, time to port is this.
It's late at night. You got off the highway to get some gas, and had to wander about in the endless urban darkness of Indiana below Chicago on a maze of one-way streets for half an hour to find fuel. You got gas from an all-night credit card pump. Now how do you find your highway again?
Google Map: You're gonna run out of gas before you find it again. And then get mugged.
GPS: Just do what it tells you to. It knows where you are, and where you're going. Piece of cake.
Out hiking, your kid finds some neat rocks in a field, or discovers a cave in rural Kentucky.
Google Map: You'll never, ever find this place again. Tough luck.
GPS: Tap "Mark Waypoint" and you'll come right back to it — even from China.
Get a decent GPS. End of need for paper maps. Period. My GPS can get me there, find me lodging, food, entertainment, landmarks, let me explore... Modern GPS systems are mind-blowing. They make it a lot more fun to drive, as well,
Seems like it deserves an answer. No. I am a different kind of scientist; I'm an AI researcher working on tying emotional and other "tones" to memory. I employ several other PhD's in that pursuit. I also own and manage several businesses: A literary agency, a software company, a martial arts studio (I'm an instructor there), a recording studio (musician and recording engineer), and a lingerie (stockings) store. So you might say I'm somewhat diversified.
I have a broad interest in science, bleeding edge and otherwise, and I try to pay attention.
I said "come about": That means, the conditions that led to it, not how it progressed once it was under way.
I suspect you see it because it is a valid argument.
"toe"
Tenure, funding, pride of place at cocktail parties, self-respect. They're human, you know. Your argument of funding from oil companies is pitiful. No serious scientist wants that; that's a good way to have, for instance, some dweeb on slashdot (or some politico in Washington) to point at your research and say "see, it's OBVIOUSLY biased!"
I said "cope", I didn't say "resolve" or "solve". You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Well, then again — you'll need to pay considerably better attention. I said "you'll see a temperature swing", I didn't say "you'll see warming." Further, if you'll read the rest of my posts, I made specific reference to this. Maybe you should wipe the foam from your lips, take a deep breath, and see if you can figure out what I actually wrote means, as opposed to what you imagine I might have said.
Without going into a great deal of detail, let me provide a couple of pointers you can use to begin hunting stuff up on the net.
First, with regard to storage of nuclear waste. Passivated glass block storage solves all the storage problems. The waste is distributed in the block, the block will last longer than the waste's dangerous lifespan, the production of the block is easy and the stored materials will neither erode, progress chemically, or distribute themselves through the environment any other way. The technology is here now, and all it takes is using it to resolve the problem. In other words, money. The only down side is that once in said glass block, the "waste" is really waste, that is, we can't use it for anything else. This may not be optimum.
Second, with regard to accidents, modern reactor designs don't have those same kinds of problems. Neither do smaller, low-ish power reactors. For instance, look up pebble bed reactors. Good design is important.
There have been some really exceptional flares recently, X-class and basically darned near off the scale (X22(!), in 2001 if memory serves.) We've been lucky enough to miss a direct hit from the worst of them, but clearly, old sol is having a bit of a temper tantrum, at least when you consider the narrow environmental window we can survive within. As a ham radio operator, I've been carefully watching, and been directly affected by, the 11-ish year solar cycle for the last fifty years, and I can tell you that the atmosphere's behavior today in terms of propagation is not even remotely similar to the way it was when I first began paying attention. This is essentially a direct the result of solar activity, and of little else, as near as anyone has been able to figure out. So I'm inclined to be doubtful when anyone says that solar input to the planet isn't changing, based on my own observations, for which I have logs dating back to the late fifties.
This does not mean that we are not seeing a natural cycle. There is no validated theory connecting quantum and macro level activity, either, but that doesn't mean it isn't connected. There is no theory that definitively explains how a "big bang" could come about, yet it may be the case, and so on. The bottom line is, nature doesn't give a hoot for our theories, it does what it does despite what we believe. Theories are our best shot at trying to understand what is going on. But in many cases -- how brains work, what intelligence means, interesting details about gravity, and yes, climate, theory is not really very well nailed down.
The fact that in the geological record, CO2 increases lag warming periods by quite a bit puts at least some reasonable doubt on it as a causative agent, per se. Dust, on the other hand, is a known causative agent (see 1816, AKA the "year without a summer" for a seminal example.) It may well be that particulates are a far greater villain in the end. Certainly the more recent records (last millennium or so) favors this outlook.
Look, it is perfectly reasonable to argue for reduction of emissions. We have lots of right here, right now, reasons to so argue. Acid rain. Particulate levels of various unfriendly materials. Radioactivity from burning coal. Simple visibility beyond a mile or so in urban areas. Why not stick with what we actually know instead of creating a cult of "CO2 is the Evil Heat God" worshipers out of what is really pretty doubtful (and ass backwards in terms of causality) theory? Maybe a hundred years from now we'll have a handle on climate. Maybe (though I personally doubt it) on weather as well. But clearly, we do not today, and it seems quite ridiculous to get in a froth over such doubtful science.
And then there's the whole "politically correct" factor; there is no question that speaking against the climate change faction is not any way to get funding, to get published, or even to get invited to a party. That's got a very bad smell when it applies to science. We're supposed to make predictions from the data, not match the data to our predictions, no matter what the outside influences are. I fear climate science has done very poorly in this regard. From strident predictions of an "immanent ice age" to "we're all gonna fry!" within the space of a few decades is a real bell-ringer. It seems to me that these folks need to spend a little more time looking at what is happening before we should pay them a whole lot of attention in terms of them having the definitive scoop on what's going to happen... or not.
The only extinction I really expect to see is that of the reputations of "scientists" who harp on CO2 emissions when CO2 is a very small part of the overall picture; Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.
We have every reason to reduce emissions. I'm absolutely pro-emission-reduction; cleaner air is better for every living thing and that's a perfectly good justification to swing me. However, bogus, over-hyped faux "science" just serves to give the opponents somewhere to stand and take a swing at the "scientists."
The fact is, we've been warmer, and we've been colder, and CO2 is not the be-all, end-all index of why it is cold or hot. For instance, just let a major volcano erupt and you'll see a temperature swing that'll get your attention. Or let methane generation get completely out of hand, that'll put CO2 in perspective for you.
Aside from all that, we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will. Barring asteroid impacts, of course.
Very interesting. The question is, from the point of view of the VC, what does "light" mean.
For instance, I had a need for some database functionality in our image processing product. Handling EXIF fields and general (and unpredictable) other records for a thumbnail database that could be any size based on filesystem limits. I wrote a database system that supports the subset of SQL that I needed (create, insert, delete, undelete, pack, update, select) in about 20k (bytes, not lines. 860 lines.) No external dependencies at all in terms of libraries or OPC (Other People's Code), does just what we required. Self-contained to the point where you can drop the module on a web server, for instance, and use the database system there with no changes at all. Took about two days to spec it, write it from scratch and document it. To me, that's reasonably "light." Things inevitably get "heavy" when you try to include everything everyone likes and/or might need in just about any possible situation.
Were I into pursuing this, the first thing I'd ask is for the VC's definition of "light", and I would inquire as to what the requirements were, or else ask what they could live without. You don't even consider going into something like this without a pretty clear roadmap. Another thing is that given the size of the offering (three million, which you probably need to figure you'll get to keep about half of what's left after your expenses, after Uncle Sugar has finished savaging you), you have to know you're not on the hook to provide a huge, complex product. Three million isn't enough to fund a big product, not to mention maintenance, it's just that simple. And they did make it reasonably clear that a big product wasn't what they were after. I would say that unless the three million is just to get you to put your foot in the door, something like PostgreSQL is "right out" as Monty Python would have it.