"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Make = verb; law = noun/object; respecting = participle, modifying law. Respect (v) according to the OED: "To treat or regard with deference, esteem, or honour; to feel or show respect for". Establishment: "the act of establishing"
Putting it all together: "Congress shall make no law esteeming, honouring, or showing respect for an act of establishing of religion." Sounds like state religion to me.
Some quick Googling: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project s/ftrials/c onlaw/estabinto.htm "At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. "
Then again, I'm not the Supreme Court, so it doesn't really matter what I say.
Of course, the issue hasn't really come up, since Congress hasn't tried to establish a state religion.
Your blanket assertion that students lack First Amendment rights was fallacious at best, primarily because you lack the constitutional authority to interpret the First Amendment. I provided an example in which the Supreme Court has supported free speech in schools and an example in which they indicated that a right that you seem to think exists actually doesn't. The latter is a question of semantics. You claim that students are being denied rights, while the Supreme Court seems to say that said rights simply don't exist in the first place.
"How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?"
You can teach them that the First Amendment means the following:
1) What it says. 2) What the Supreme Court says it means.
You can teach the kids about relevant Supreme Court decisions (Hazlewood) that affect their rights. Otherwise, you haven't really been teaching them so much as buttressing their ignorance with your own.
"How should students understand the first amendment right when they yet do not have those rights in public schools?"
You're right and wrong (more the latter than the former, I'm afraid).
Wrong: Tinker vs. Des Moines: (students ability to freely protest Vietnam War upheld)
Right (sort of): Hazlewood case. You're wrong there because the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment a bit differently than you. (principal's right to censor student publications)
...after all, most adults don't know the first amendment, either, when they go off about how parties other than the government are "violating their first amendment rights."
"I'm not putting down an honest effort here. I'm just suggesting there might be more important goals than trying to get everyone in the world a PC right now."...like trying to get everyone in the world a Mac? Think of how the Third World can change Apple's market share;)
"If a company can control the distribution of its "intellectual property" - e.g. a song - from the moment it's recorded until it hits your ears - then there's additional opportunities for a revenue stream at any point in that line."...and then it's more of an issue of vertical integration, monopolization, and anti-trust litigation. That gets the DoJ and EU involved, and things get ugly quickly.
...and I still use lynx, occasionally (e.g. to post this message and make some kind of point). It goes without saying, however, that those who choose to use old browsers have even less need for books on how to use them, since they're probably out of print by now, anyway..
Surely you jest. They moved 4.5 million iPods just during the Holiday Season. The "geek circle" can't be that big. Go to a gym sometime; tell me that all the women working out with their shiny pink iPods are geeks.
Bloomingdales sells iPods; Nieman Marcus sells insanely expensive iPod cases. You can't possible believe that these are typical geek shopping venues.
In short, yes. If people "knew" how to use MSIE in the first place, they wouldn't be needing to switch, since they wouldn't have all the computer problems that are likely the reason that they're switching in the first place.
Besides, some people RTFM and not everyone started out with Netscape 1.0 then learned subsequent features as they were added.
...we're gonna run out of energy one of these days, anyway, so we might as well encourage global warming, then get to work on efficent methods for converting the excess heat energy into a more usable form.
Let's also not forget how the First Law of Cynicism in Science applies here: climatologists can most easily get funding for their research if they keep producing results sensational(ist) enough to merit front-page headlines on the NYT. Now who's gonna get the press and the money? The everything-is-fine-so-just-go-about-your-business crowd, or the oceans-are-going-to-boil-and-we're-all-going-to-di e crowd?
The short answer is there is no expectation of privacy where one could not reasonably expect to have it, and, as always, the Fourth Amendment only protects you from the Government, not individuals. Remember that when you are strolling into a bank, parking garage, or campus of an urban university with its own police force. Or when you are walking down the street in nearly any urban area.
I see little reason why a large public spectacle like a police beating (which AFAIK is usually filmed by individuals with non-digital cameras) that is easily observed and reported without the aid of photography, anyway, should be the first concern that comes to mind, except if the AC in question is a militant anarachist. I'd be more concerned about this technology's ability to aid criminals in commission of crimes and to bankrupt HP's shareholders should it ever come to market.
ahhh... the extremely valuable leisure time of prison inmates, and the evil republicans taking it away...
Whether the focus is on the rehabilitive or retributive aspects of incarceration, it seems like "relaxation and fun" should not be high on the list of priorities for accomplishing the goals of imprisonment.
Ironically, if you read "loose" as a verb, it undermines your entire screed.
Said inmates could just as easily resort to developing further the skills that got them in there in the first place. Illiteracy rates in prison are, what, 5x those of the general population?
" its should be left up to the intelligence of the readers on the web to decide what they believe and what they reject. "
You are certainly overestimating something. PT Barnum had a similar philosopy...
Just because the exact purpose and content of the site are not *widely* known does not necessarily mean that those responsible for shutting it down lacked said information at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. I know some people that are the same way about their guns...
yeah... "help, help, I'm being repressed"
1 15 31718
I should complain about how my first amendment rights are being violated:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137903&cid=
I hate to say it, but RTFC (or RTFBoR).
t s/ftrials/c onlaw/estabinto.htm
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Make = verb; law = noun/object; respecting = participle, modifying law. Respect (v) according to the OED: "To treat or regard with deference, esteem, or honour; to feel or show respect for". Establishment: "the act of establishing"
Putting it all together: "Congress shall make no law esteeming, honouring, or showing respect for an act of establishing of religion." Sounds like state religion to me.
Some quick Googling:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projec
"At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. "
Then again, I'm not the Supreme Court, so it doesn't really matter what I say.
Of course, the issue hasn't really come up, since Congress hasn't tried to establish a state religion.
Your blanket assertion that students lack First Amendment rights was fallacious at best, primarily because you lack the constitutional authority to interpret the First Amendment. I provided an example in which the Supreme Court has supported free speech in schools and an example in which they indicated that a right that you seem to think exists actually doesn't. The latter is a question of semantics. You claim that students are being denied rights, while the Supreme Court seems to say that said rights simply don't exist in the first place.
exactly. Framers' intent was to prevent the establishment of a "state religion," like the Church of England.
"How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?"
You can teach them that the First Amendment means the following:
1) What it says.
2) What the Supreme Court says it means.
You can teach the kids about relevant Supreme Court decisions (Hazlewood) that affect their rights. Otherwise, you haven't really been teaching them so much as buttressing their ignorance with your own.
"How should students understand the first amendment right when they yet do not have those rights in public schools?"
You're right and wrong (more the latter than the former, I'm afraid).
Wrong: Tinker vs. Des Moines: (students ability to freely protest Vietnam War upheld)
Right (sort of): Hazlewood case. You're wrong there because the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment a bit differently than you. (principal's right to censor student publications)
That's great and all, but how does it relate to the first amendment?
...after all, most adults don't know the first amendment, either, when they go off about how parties other than the government are "violating their first amendment rights."
"I'm not putting down an honest effort here. I'm just suggesting there might be more important goals than trying to get everyone in the world a PC right now." ...like trying to get everyone in the world a Mac? Think of how the Third World can change Apple's market share ;)
"If a company can control the distribution of its "intellectual property" - e.g. a song - from the moment it's recorded until it hits your ears - then there's additional opportunities for a revenue stream at any point in that line." ...and then it's more of an issue of vertical integration, monopolization, and anti-trust litigation. That gets the DoJ and EU involved, and things get ugly quickly.
"Somehow I don't think it's wise to do such circumvention if you want to stay there short-term/long-term/permanently."
Actually, that seems like one of the easiest ways to stay there permanently.
...and I still use lynx, occasionally (e.g. to post this message and make some kind of point). It goes without saying, however, that those who choose to use old browsers have even less need for books on how to use them, since they're probably out of print by now, anyway..
Surely you jest. They moved 4.5 million iPods just during the Holiday Season. The "geek circle" can't be that big. Go to a gym sometime; tell me that all the women working out with their shiny pink iPods are geeks.
Bloomingdales sells iPods; Nieman Marcus sells insanely expensive iPod cases. You can't possible believe that these are typical geek shopping venues.
...kinda like that old joke about the Soviet Union developing the world's largest microchip?
In short, yes. If people "knew" how to use MSIE in the first place, they wouldn't be needing to switch, since they wouldn't have all the computer problems that are likely the reason that they're switching in the first place.
Besides, some people RTFM and not everyone started out with Netscape 1.0 then learned subsequent features as they were added.
But it will, at least, make the Braille at drive-up ATMs somewhat more useful...
...we're gonna run out of energy one of these days, anyway, so we might as well encourage global warming, then get to work on efficent methods for converting the excess heat energy into a more usable form.
i e crowd?
Let's also not forget how the First Law of Cynicism in Science applies here: climatologists can most easily get funding for their research if they keep producing results sensational(ist) enough to merit front-page headlines on the NYT. Now who's gonna get the press and the money? The everything-is-fine-so-just-go-about-your-business crowd, or the oceans-are-going-to-boil-and-we're-all-going-to-d
The short answer is there is no expectation of privacy where one could not reasonably expect to have it, and, as always, the Fourth Amendment only protects you from the Government, not individuals. Remember that when you are strolling into a bank, parking garage, or campus of an urban university with its own police force. Or when you are walking down the street in nearly any urban area.
I see little reason why a large public spectacle like a police beating (which AFAIK is usually filmed by individuals with non-digital cameras) that is easily observed and reported without the aid of photography, anyway, should be the first concern that comes to mind, except if the AC in question is a militant anarachist. I'd be more concerned about this technology's ability to aid criminals in commission of crimes and to bankrupt HP's shareholders should it ever come to market.
ahhh... the extremely valuable leisure time of prison inmates, and the evil republicans taking it away... Whether the focus is on the rehabilitive or retributive aspects of incarceration, it seems like "relaxation and fun" should not be high on the list of priorities for accomplishing the goals of imprisonment. Ironically, if you read "loose" as a verb, it undermines your entire screed.
They may not have had video games, but they probably didn't have free meals, health insurance, or gang-rapes in the shower, either.
Said inmates could just as easily resort to developing further the skills that got them in there in the first place. Illiteracy rates in prison are, what, 5x those of the general population?
the "Netscape Now 3.0" button from Netscape's old page really takes me back...
Wouldn't a high signal-to-noise ratio be a good thing?
" its should be left up to the intelligence of the readers on the web to decide what they believe and what they reject. " You are certainly overestimating something. PT Barnum had a similar philosopy... Just because the exact purpose and content of the site are not *widely* known does not necessarily mean that those responsible for shutting it down lacked said information at the time.