Actually we were discussing our rights in the USA as compared to your rights as British, if I recall.
Yes, if one ammendment's rights trample on another ammedment's rights then the case needs to pick which ammendment takes priority. Oh no, we have no many rights, damn them. What is your point? Is there a "right" in Britian to not be talked about if youre gay?
You made the statement that you enjoy more freedoms then us. You then brought up a handful of drugs you can buy and use without penalty. I'm a libertarian so I happen to believe all drugs should be legal, and on this front you certainly DO have more freedoms then us.
However, if you have no written and protected freedom of speech, and obviously press (unless you want to lump them together, since they are closely related), I don't see how you can possibly say you have a more free press than the USA. You don't. Our press does not get censored because our leaders fuck some guys ass and get caught. Bottom line. And was that information "deemed harmful". Harmful for who? Prince Charle's reputation? Heaven forbid.
In fact, in America we even have the Freedom of Information bill, which pretty much lets us see anything, sans extremely classified government documents, and even then sometimes only the extremely classified sections are blacked out. That is obvious for national security. Prince Charle's sex life is not extremely classified, has nothing to do with national security, and should not be censored.
I admitted, 100% admit you have more freedom in terms of drugs, it would be noble of you to admit that we probably have a freer press. Maybe not leaps and bounds freer, but then again you aren't leaps and bounds above us in drugs. Cocaine, heroin, etc are all still illegal in both countries.
You obviously have no idea how the American justice system works.
First, courts can make rulings all the time, but if the USSC finds those rulings unconstitutional, and overturns them, that sets a precedent. With a precedent in place, until the USSC rules the reverse of this ruling, laws and rulings can not be made that are found unconstitutional.
Furthermore, just because some crazy judge found it was ok in one lower court does not mean AMERICA allowed it. The USSC upholds the constitutionality of a law or ruling, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land in America. If the USSC finds a law or ruling against the constitution, especially so quickly after it was passed (in this case 14 days because the court obviously saw how against American ideals this was) and reverses it, then the law itself has no precedence and no significance in American law, other than it's basically an example of what NOT to do.
And finally, yes I am assuming all cases are ruled against. Do you know what the burden of proof is? You are making the statement that America has done this before, but have only offered one case 30 years ago that got overturned very quickly because it wasn't tolerated. I made the statement that if the govt attempted to censor the press in America it "wouldn't fly". What happened when the government tried to censor the press 30 years ago? It got overturned immediately, thus, not flying. Thus, I was right.
Oh and to address your first point, you originally said:
"Secondly, did you miss the part about the court injunction? You have the same thing in your country - inability to publish a story whilst awaiting the court hearing."
Inability to publish a story whilst awaiting the court hearing. Tell me, when is this court hearing going to occur about Prince Charles being gay, because your sentence implies that there is going to be a trial, and the press can't talk about it while awaiting the trial. But there is no trial in this story, the only court action was the censoring of the press, which, as I showed earlier can't be done in America (it can be attempted, but the USSC shot it down as soon as someone tried)
Did you even read it? The USSC found that the press couldn't be censored. In other words it DIDN'T fly in America. You just proved my point.
From the court ruling:
[The First Amendment] leaves, in my view, no room for governmental restraint on the press. There is, moreover, no statute barring the publication by the press of the material which the Times and Post seek to use...
Furthermore:
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." justification for the enforcement of such restraint."...The District Court in the New York Times case and the District Court and the Court of Appeals in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.
So you have no point. You bring up a 30 year old case that proves my point, and then you bring up my relatively new status here at slashdot...for no reason?
I see the tuition hike posts being modded as funny, but there's actual seriousness to that.
The university I go to decided to give "free" laptops to the engineers, but in return hike up their tuition another 2,000 dollars in addition to the annual hike the whole university got. Free...more like "forced"
Inability to publish a story awaiting a hearing? Right, that's why the Michael Jackson allegations were "banned" from the newspapers. Or the Kobe allegations. Or how about allegations against former President Clinton. Were any of these things stopped from being talked about?
And lastly, you're wrong. I've read the article again and again and see nothing about a court hearing. Why would there be? The allegations are about Prince Charles and another man, is that against the law? So there IS no crime occuring, and thus NO reason the papers should be censored. This would never ever fly here in America. If someone caught Bush and another guy having sex and the government banned the press from talking about it, shit would hit the fan.
Wasn't Marijuana JUST made legal or..more legal, in the UK and you are going to hold that against America? That freedom was censored a couple years ago, yes you're going to use it as a beacon of freedom now? Pish...
Furthermore, our press isn't censored at all. At. All. You can print anything you want, sans something like child pornography.
That's nice that you can define words. Look I can do it too
A comment on slashdot, in order to be considered a comment must use the word "ambitious". Since you didn't use the word, you didn't comment.
Please. The word "sport" has a defintion, you can't just make one up
Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
There it is. It has nothing to do with an object, or offense or defense.
This is a serious question, not meant to flame.
Has any one actually recently used a software patent offensively? I know most firms get them for defensive purposes only, not to go sueing other companies. Has there actually been lawsuits to test the validity of a patent on an algorithm?
we've been TRILLIONS in debt for ages, far before bush. How does the national debt affect my life? The government still spends more than it brings in, so the programs I need money in aren't getting cut. I'm not being taxes any higher to pay off the debt. So how is my life affected?
Once...again
If you increase speed by a factor of X due to bandwidth and decrease speed by a factor of Y due to latency, if X>Y then the overall benefit is positive and the latency is negated.
Ummm...wow
Where..exactly in my post do I claim dual channel improves latency? *looks back* Oh right, no where. I said it impoves BANDWIDTH, which it does, which leads to higher performance.
I need an example for something so blatantly obvious?
Think about it. Dual Channel effectively doubles bandwidth if the system can handle it. Now, we all know that it doesn't achieve those results 100%, but it still increases bandwidth by a decent margin. Take for example a Pentium 4 with an 800 mhz (200x4) bus. It has the capacity for 6.4 gigs of bandwidth, but PC3200 RAM single channel only offers at most 3.2 gigs of bandwidth. Switching to dual channel allows a theoretical 6.4 gig of bandwidth to now be available. Of course, results don't achieve their theoretical limits, but that's true for everything. Latency issues are almost non existent, and certainly don't override even 1 gig of extra bandwidth.
Oh, in reference to the articles use of the word Value...sorry
Yeah, they had different picks for perf vs price, but I stick with GEIL, all of the stuff I've bought last, and run well.
GEIL
Not only do they have GEIL placing well in the middle of the lineup both in price and performance, but I have noted that it offers the best of both worlds. It doesn't cost nearly as much as the high high end stuff, and while it doesn't perform *quite* as well, it's still better than the low end stuff. GEIL presents a good opporutinity to chose between Value and High End
Slashdot Mirror
Actually we were discussing our rights in the USA as compared to your rights as British, if I recall.
Yes, if one ammendment's rights trample on another ammedment's rights then the case needs to pick which ammendment takes priority. Oh no, we have no many rights, damn them. What is your point? Is there a "right" in Britian to not be talked about if youre gay?
You made the statement that you enjoy more freedoms then us. You then brought up a handful of drugs you can buy and use without penalty. I'm a libertarian so I happen to believe all drugs should be legal, and on this front you certainly DO have more freedoms then us.
However, if you have no written and protected freedom of speech, and obviously press (unless you want to lump them together, since they are closely related), I don't see how you can possibly say you have a more free press than the USA. You don't. Our press does not get censored because our leaders fuck some guys ass and get caught. Bottom line. And was that information "deemed harmful". Harmful for who? Prince Charle's reputation? Heaven forbid.
In fact, in America we even have the Freedom of Information bill, which pretty much lets us see anything, sans extremely classified government documents, and even then sometimes only the extremely classified sections are blacked out. That is obvious for national security. Prince Charle's sex life is not extremely classified, has nothing to do with national security, and should not be censored.
I admitted, 100% admit you have more freedom in terms of drugs, it would be noble of you to admit that we probably have a freer press. Maybe not leaps and bounds freer, but then again you aren't leaps and bounds above us in drugs. Cocaine, heroin, etc are all still illegal in both countries.
You obviously have no idea how the American justice system works.
First, courts can make rulings all the time, but if the USSC finds those rulings unconstitutional, and overturns them, that sets a precedent. With a precedent in place, until the USSC rules the reverse of this ruling, laws and rulings can not be made that are found unconstitutional.
Furthermore, just because some crazy judge found it was ok in one lower court does not mean AMERICA allowed it. The USSC upholds the constitutionality of a law or ruling, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land in America. If the USSC finds a law or ruling against the constitution, especially so quickly after it was passed (in this case 14 days because the court obviously saw how against American ideals this was) and reverses it, then the law itself has no precedence and no significance in American law, other than it's basically an example of what NOT to do.
And finally, yes I am assuming all cases are ruled against. Do you know what the burden of proof is? You are making the statement that America has done this before, but have only offered one case 30 years ago that got overturned very quickly because it wasn't tolerated. I made the statement that if the govt attempted to censor the press in America it "wouldn't fly". What happened when the government tried to censor the press 30 years ago? It got overturned immediately, thus, not flying. Thus, I was right.
Oh and to address your first point, you originally said:
"Secondly, did you miss the part about the court injunction? You have the same thing in your country - inability to publish a story whilst awaiting the court hearing."
Inability to publish a story whilst awaiting the court hearing. Tell me, when is this court hearing going to occur about Prince Charles being gay, because your sentence implies that there is going to be a trial, and the press can't talk about it while awaiting the trial. But there is no trial in this story, the only court action was the censoring of the press, which, as I showed earlier can't be done in America (it can be attempted, but the USSC shot it down as soon as someone tried)
Are you SERIOUS?
Did you even read it? The USSC found that the press couldn't be censored. In other words it DIDN'T fly in America. You just proved my point.
From the court ruling:
[The First Amendment] leaves, in my view, no room for governmental restraint on the press. There is, moreover, no statute barring the publication by the press of the material which the Times and Post seek to use...
Furthermore:
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." justification for the enforcement of such restraint."...The District Court in the New York Times case and the District Court and the Court of Appeals in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.
So you have no point. You bring up a 30 year old case that proves my point, and then you bring up my relatively new status here at slashdot...for no reason?
I see the tuition hike posts being modded as funny, but there's actual seriousness to that. The university I go to decided to give "free" laptops to the engineers, but in return hike up their tuition another 2,000 dollars in addition to the annual hike the whole university got. Free...more like "forced"
Inability to publish a story awaiting a hearing? Right, that's why the Michael Jackson allegations were "banned" from the newspapers. Or the Kobe allegations. Or how about allegations against former President Clinton. Were any of these things stopped from being talked about? And lastly, you're wrong. I've read the article again and again and see nothing about a court hearing. Why would there be? The allegations are about Prince Charles and another man, is that against the law? So there IS no crime occuring, and thus NO reason the papers should be censored. This would never ever fly here in America. If someone caught Bush and another guy having sex and the government banned the press from talking about it, shit would hit the fan.
Wasn't Marijuana JUST made legal or..more legal, in the UK and you are going to hold that against America? That freedom was censored a couple years ago, yes you're going to use it as a beacon of freedom now? Pish...
Furthermore, our press isn't censored at all. At. All. You can print anything you want, sans something like child pornography.
Furthermore, explain this:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091148/
Something like that in america would never fly.
That's nice that you can define words. Look I can do it too A comment on slashdot, in order to be considered a comment must use the word "ambitious". Since you didn't use the word, you didn't comment. Please. The word "sport" has a defintion, you can't just make one up Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. There it is. It has nothing to do with an object, or offense or defense.
Was there a lawsuit involving the Amazon thing?
This is a serious question, not meant to flame. Has any one actually recently used a software patent offensively? I know most firms get them for defensive purposes only, not to go sueing other companies. Has there actually been lawsuits to test the validity of a patent on an algorithm?
You really think Democrats care about you? Politicians only care about money and power bud, sorry to break it to you.
we've been TRILLIONS in debt for ages, far before bush. How does the national debt affect my life? The government still spends more than it brings in, so the programs I need money in aren't getting cut. I'm not being taxes any higher to pay off the debt. So how is my life affected?
Once...again If you increase speed by a factor of X due to bandwidth and decrease speed by a factor of Y due to latency, if X>Y then the overall benefit is positive and the latency is negated.
Ummm...wow Where..exactly in my post do I claim dual channel improves latency? *looks back* Oh right, no where. I said it impoves BANDWIDTH, which it does, which leads to higher performance.
I need an example for something so blatantly obvious? Think about it. Dual Channel effectively doubles bandwidth if the system can handle it. Now, we all know that it doesn't achieve those results 100%, but it still increases bandwidth by a decent margin. Take for example a Pentium 4 with an 800 mhz (200x4) bus. It has the capacity for 6.4 gigs of bandwidth, but PC3200 RAM single channel only offers at most 3.2 gigs of bandwidth. Switching to dual channel allows a theoretical 6.4 gig of bandwidth to now be available. Of course, results don't achieve their theoretical limits, but that's true for everything. Latency issues are almost non existent, and certainly don't override even 1 gig of extra bandwidth.
Oh, in reference to the articles use of the word Value...sorry Yeah, they had different picks for perf vs price, but I stick with GEIL, all of the stuff I've bought last, and run well.
They prefer the term "Little People" now
The fact that the bandwidth is increased on a system that can utilize it with dual channel obviously completely negates any latency issues.
Value RAM doesn't mean best value, it's a nice word for "cheap RAM".
GEIL Not only do they have GEIL placing well in the middle of the lineup both in price and performance, but I have noted that it offers the best of both worlds. It doesn't cost nearly as much as the high high end stuff, and while it doesn't perform *quite* as well, it's still better than the low end stuff. GEIL presents a good opporutinity to chose between Value and High End