That was extended to the States by the Supreme Court through the 14th Amendment in a series of decisions starting in the 1890s. It was not always that way and in fact, the text says so such thing. The text explicitly excludes the States from obligations under the First Amendment, for example, by its distinct use of 'Congress'.
What Microsoft is going for here is twofold: Firstly, being able to locate where an image was taken by simply analyzing the image (this could be pictures from a history book, or your family photo album- something for which location data was not available)
Secondly, being able to specify. GPS, Wifi, and cell tower triangulation become very much less accurate in large cities. Analysis based on pictures could be very much more accurate, with a sufficient number of images to analyze for positional data.
The text itself says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."
Demonstrate how campaign finance is speech. Does money talk? No, it does not. Speech is communication by the exchange of spoken, or audible, words. Prima facie, the First Amendment does not protect any other kind of expression.
States are not congress. Prima facie, the state governments are not bound by the First Amendment. The chilling effect is not an abridgment; the State is free to create a law punishing you for your speech afterward, because that's not an abridgment of your right to free speech.
This is my problem, you see. You don't actually want the government to obey the constitution. You just want to interpret it in a manner that you think is appropriate.
I don't think it is clear. The law says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", but that says absolutely nothing on its face about campaign finance. Nor does it say anything whatsoever about blogs, radio, television, or any written material that is not published but is otherwise distributed.
The law says political speech cannot be controlled. That is all. The fact is, Courts have tended to err very strongly on the freedom of speech clause well beyond its face value.
Your average person with a high school education can't read the constitution for beans. At least, not in the way you would expect.
For example, a mere glance at the first two amendments indicates they're unclear:
"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."
What exactly is meant by freedom of speech there? Why? If the government can't make a law abridging the freedom of speech, then how about the freedom to write? What constitutes the freedom of the press?
For that matter, how many people know what a prefatory clause is, let alone how to interpret it and its relevance to the following badly-constructed statement?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This falls under one of the most fallacious nerd traps of all time: That the fact that this might be technically true will ever do you any good whatsoever.
As any good lawyer knows, if you get to the point where you have to use that defense, you're probably already in shit up to your neck and that defense won't do anything more than stop it from rising.
Jake Sisko took a calculus exam at the age of 15 in DS9's "Second Sight", which suggests that students in things like Star Trek are simply further ahead than most students in modern schools
I think the trick of it is, though, as long as your computer technology is sufficiently reliable, you just need to know how to manipulate it- it's not necessary to learn how to actually do any of what it's doing. If it breaks, you're already dead in the water.
I mean, the Enterprise's main computer also controls things like warp core containment and life support. If it goes out, you blow up, freeze, or asphyxiate; knowing exactly how to calculate warp field dynamics in your head is probably not terribly useful.
To be more specific, I find it illogical to assume that the NSA would require you to provide them with the keys and at the same time let you talk about it.
Given this, I am suspicious of your claim in the extreme.
Your argument essentially boils down to "Nobody should be allowed to give away anything for free because that stops people from selling competitors to it".
The truth is, there's a reason why Windows-N didn't sell at all. (Windows-N, of course, being the EU-specific version of Windows without WMP).
The reason was because Microsoft didn't decrease the price of Windows-N any. And why not? Because they were perfectly willing to give away Windows Media Player for free anyway, so there's no reason to decrease the price they sell Windows for if they remove it.
The same is exactly true of Internet Explorer. Microsoft might create a version of Windows without IE. But they're not going to reduce the price of it, because it's free to start with. The result will be just one more version of Windows that nobody wants to buy because it's feature-crippled compared to other versions that cost the exact same amount.
OEMs won't buy it because it's more work, just like they didn't adopt Windows-N wholesale. It will stagnate. I think I heard that Windows-N sold a whole 1500 copies.
UAC does exactly what it is supposed to do- it pops an elevation prompt for every process that requires elevation. As far as I'm aware, you can't 'chain' processes (although whether or not you should be able to, IMNSHO, is debatable.)
Things like requiring UAC confirmation to do things like delete certain desktop shortcuts? Probably not terribly useful if you're the user, but perfectly understandable in the security context. Those shortcuts are not located in the user's home folder, but in a common home folder the user does not have access to that places them on all user's desktops. Accessing that common folder requires elevation because it messes with all the users on the system.
That said, if your system is properly configured, you shouldn't run into UAC prompts at most more than once or twice on an average day.
The problem, as you say, is that 90% of typical users want to just use the computer. Which is why the typical user's computer is infested with crap; they don't care about security, and never will. The resulting mess is not so much the fault of the operating system, which does its best to warn the user (and which the user then dutifully goes ahead and ignores) but the fault of the user.
Like this worm, for example- a security vulnerability for which a security patch was made available months ago. Any user who is still vulnerable is vulnerable because of their own lack of action.
And yet, the exact same security model is present in Windows Vista- users need to provide an administrative password to elevate security privileges for a process that requires administrator-level access, or, even if you are logged in as administrator, you need to provide confirmation to conduct administrator-flagged actions.
This is the premise behind Vista's UAC.
Notice how universally it is panned as being useless, despite being exactly the type of security model you advocate?
The author probably has no rights to declare it or steps to declare it. After all, the organization is not making a copyright claim in a court of law; they are merely making it to Youtube, who can then do whatever the hell they like and if you don't like it, you can go hang.
Yes, $90k per year is a 'little'. Up to about 90k is basically 'lower class', 90-200k or so is 'middle class', and from about 200-1000k you're 'upper middle class'.
It doesn't really start being 'a lot' until you're 1000k+.
Willingly and willfully are not the same thing, but assuming you meant 'willfully' in the first sentence, that's not entirely true.
Mens rea, or the guilty mind (guilty intent) is a key element of the criminal law. There are some crimes for which a guilty mind is not necessary (parking and speeding tickets, for example, some regulatory offenses, whatever) but in the case of most criminal offenses, without intent you cannot be guilty.
Now, that is intent to commit the offense proscribed by law. The fact that you might be ignorant of the law is no excuse, although it can be a mitigating factor.
Slashdot Mirror
That was extended to the States by the Supreme Court through the 14th Amendment in a series of decisions starting in the 1890s. It was not always that way and in fact, the text says so such thing. The text explicitly excludes the States from obligations under the First Amendment, for example, by its distinct use of 'Congress'.
Wikitude is a totally different concept.
What Microsoft is going for here is twofold: Firstly, being able to locate where an image was taken by simply analyzing the image (this could be pictures from a history book, or your family photo album- something for which location data was not available)
Secondly, being able to specify. GPS, Wifi, and cell tower triangulation become very much less accurate in large cities. Analysis based on pictures could be very much more accurate, with a sufficient number of images to analyze for positional data.
The text itself says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."
Demonstrate how campaign finance is speech. Does money talk? No, it does not. Speech is communication by the exchange of spoken, or audible, words. Prima facie, the First Amendment does not protect any other kind of expression.
States are not congress. Prima facie, the state governments are not bound by the First Amendment. The chilling effect is not an abridgment; the State is free to create a law punishing you for your speech afterward, because that's not an abridgment of your right to free speech.
This is my problem, you see. You don't actually want the government to obey the constitution. You just want to interpret it in a manner that you think is appropriate.
I don't think it is clear. The law says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", but that says absolutely nothing on its face about campaign finance. Nor does it say anything whatsoever about blogs, radio, television, or any written material that is not published but is otherwise distributed.
The law says political speech cannot be controlled. That is all. The fact is, Courts have tended to err very strongly on the freedom of speech clause well beyond its face value.
Or rather, in fact, the constitution simply is not clear.
It's intent and it's meaning are not clear, and this is perfectly obvious from its historically variable court interpretation.
Your average person with a high school education can't read the constitution for beans. At least, not in the way you would expect.
For example, a mere glance at the first two amendments indicates they're unclear:
"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."
What exactly is meant by freedom of speech there? Why? If the government can't make a law abridging the freedom of speech, then how about the freedom to write? What constitutes the freedom of the press?
For that matter, how many people know what a prefatory clause is, let alone how to interpret it and its relevance to the following badly-constructed statement?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No, you misunderstood the point of my post.
It's useless because by the time you get around to being able to use it, chances are you're already screwed.
This falls under one of the most fallacious nerd traps of all time: That the fact that this might be technically true will ever do you any good whatsoever.
As any good lawyer knows, if you get to the point where you have to use that defense, you're probably already in shit up to your neck and that defense won't do anything more than stop it from rising.
How are the two things in any way related, exactly?
Jake Sisko took a calculus exam at the age of 15 in DS9's "Second Sight", which suggests that students in things like Star Trek are simply further ahead than most students in modern schools
I think the trick of it is, though, as long as your computer technology is sufficiently reliable, you just need to know how to manipulate it- it's not necessary to learn how to actually do any of what it's doing. If it breaks, you're already dead in the water.
I mean, the Enterprise's main computer also controls things like warp core containment and life support. If it goes out, you blow up, freeze, or asphyxiate; knowing exactly how to calculate warp field dynamics in your head is probably not terribly useful.
I remember running.. it was either SBS 2003 or Windows 2000 Server on a 233 Mhz with 128 MB of RAM. I think it took about ten minutes to boot up.
And yet, somehow I don't believe you.
To be more specific, I find it illogical to assume that the NSA would require you to provide them with the keys and at the same time let you talk about it.
Given this, I am suspicious of your claim in the extreme.
You have insurance on your $2 notebooks?
Your argument essentially boils down to "Nobody should be allowed to give away anything for free because that stops people from selling competitors to it".
The truth is, there's a reason why Windows-N didn't sell at all. (Windows-N, of course, being the EU-specific version of Windows without WMP).
The reason was because Microsoft didn't decrease the price of Windows-N any. And why not? Because they were perfectly willing to give away Windows Media Player for free anyway, so there's no reason to decrease the price they sell Windows for if they remove it.
The same is exactly true of Internet Explorer. Microsoft might create a version of Windows without IE. But they're not going to reduce the price of it, because it's free to start with. The result will be just one more version of Windows that nobody wants to buy because it's feature-crippled compared to other versions that cost the exact same amount.
OEMs won't buy it because it's more work, just like they didn't adopt Windows-N wholesale. It will stagnate. I think I heard that Windows-N sold a whole 1500 copies.
Try nod = up, nix = down?
UAC does exactly what it is supposed to do- it pops an elevation prompt for every process that requires elevation. As far as I'm aware, you can't 'chain' processes (although whether or not you should be able to, IMNSHO, is debatable.)
Things like requiring UAC confirmation to do things like delete certain desktop shortcuts? Probably not terribly useful if you're the user, but perfectly understandable in the security context. Those shortcuts are not located in the user's home folder, but in a common home folder the user does not have access to that places them on all user's desktops. Accessing that common folder requires elevation because it messes with all the users on the system.
That said, if your system is properly configured, you shouldn't run into UAC prompts at most more than once or twice on an average day.
The problem, as you say, is that 90% of typical users want to just use the computer. Which is why the typical user's computer is infested with crap; they don't care about security, and never will. The resulting mess is not so much the fault of the operating system, which does its best to warn the user (and which the user then dutifully goes ahead and ignores) but the fault of the user.
Like this worm, for example- a security vulnerability for which a security patch was made available months ago. Any user who is still vulnerable is vulnerable because of their own lack of action.
And yet, the exact same security model is present in Windows Vista- users need to provide an administrative password to elevate security privileges for a process that requires administrator-level access, or, even if you are logged in as administrator, you need to provide confirmation to conduct administrator-flagged actions.
This is the premise behind Vista's UAC.
Notice how universally it is panned as being useless, despite being exactly the type of security model you advocate?
Because the police and prosecutor are so likely to file and pursue a theft and vandalism charge for a $2 notebook. That'll fly like a lead balloon.
The author probably has no rights to declare it or steps to declare it. After all, the organization is not making a copyright claim in a court of law; they are merely making it to Youtube, who can then do whatever the hell they like and if you don't like it, you can go hang.
It is, it's middle-class. Not great, but ok.
It also depends what you do, of course. Pulling 100k for driving trains is impressive. Pulling 100k for contract law... not so much.
Any major urban area?
Yes, $90k per year is a 'little'. Up to about 90k is basically 'lower class', 90-200k or so is 'middle class', and from about 200-1000k you're 'upper middle class'.
It doesn't really start being 'a lot' until you're 1000k+.
I don't think that military space flight necessarily means militarized space-flight, myself.
upside down as in the cord coming out of the bottom, not the top. Inverted on the Y axis, not the Z axis.
Willingly and willfully are not the same thing, but assuming you meant 'willfully' in the first sentence, that's not entirely true.
Mens rea, or the guilty mind (guilty intent) is a key element of the criminal law. There are some crimes for which a guilty mind is not necessary (parking and speeding tickets, for example, some regulatory offenses, whatever) but in the case of most criminal offenses, without intent you cannot be guilty.
Now, that is intent to commit the offense proscribed by law. The fact that you might be ignorant of the law is no excuse, although it can be a mitigating factor.