If they had anything to do with freedom, how did the slavery happen?
Again.. you're just trolling, right? You can't be that naive. First of all, they had nothing to do with 'freedom.' Freedom is a buzzword that is essentially meaningless. They had to do with liberty, a more interesting and yet wholly different concept.
As for why slavery still happened, if it had not, the United States would never have been created. Read up on the subject, the compromises made in order to ensure the formation of the union are quite interesting.
These court cases happened way before the current administration was though about and some were befor they were even born.
Read my post again. I didn't say a thing about the current administration, because I'm well aware that some of those court rulings are decades old.
All I'm saying is, the ideal of an educated few who will consider decisions with wisdom and without coercion is an ideal that has been shown demonstrably false. Just because the court says it is so, doesn't make it right.
You can argue all you want but the courts have already said that the constitution, bill of right and everything else in it only apply to citizens unless a law extends it to non-citizens
And the founders thought that life terms would leave the Supreme Court immune from political hackery... how wrong they were.
Good to know. I'll make sure to advise the local officials of that next time I'm in some other country. I will bet they will be very happy to learn that our laws apply everywhere.
No, only where the US has jurisdiction. Like, you know, prisons on the island of Cuba. Or customs at airports.
The citizenry is a subset of the people. The word 'citizen' was left out of the Bill of Rights on purpose - the colonial British were fond of stripping citizenship in order to carry out all manner of injustice on people.
Not to mention the fact that the political philosophy that gave birth to our nation does not limit human rights to "citizens" of some hypothetical state, but applies it to all humans equally. It would have been hypocritical for our founders to then limit recognized human rights to citizens only.
Which, incidentally, is why I don't buy any of the government's arguments about why imprisoning people in Guantanamo is legal.
There is no fundamental law which protects the stuff you mention.
I think you're missing something. The US Constitution enumerates which powers the government has. Nowhere does it empower the government to infringe on those liberties, and the ONLY applicable mention is the 4th Amendment, which recognizes the rights of the people to be secure in their possessions (note it does not grant said right - it recognizes a right the people already have).
These days it's so easy to say "Those rights aren't protected!" but most people forget that the Constitution was intended to tell the government the powers it has, not what rights the people have.
Since the only applicable text in the document protects citizens, I should think we'd start from the assumption that the government has NO RIGHT to that information, that they should PROVE they need it, and NOT that people have to prove it should be protected.
Interestingly, not one point you made had any relation to freedoms - only to the circuses used to conceal the theft of those freedoms from the populace. You're right, a sufficiently entertained populace won't care about freedoms very much, and that's exactly the problem. Complacency.
Well, fortunately, your observations are not correct. Americans defend their right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, right to private property and right to do whatever they want with that property.
No, "Americans" don't. Small groups of Americans do, and VERY small groups at that, with perhaps the exception of the NRA, which has 4.3 million members. Talk to your average American, one not actively part of these groups, and they consider these groups to be troublemakers who are just stirring up trouble for no reason and they see no purpose to the disagreements and legal battles these groups get into.
Most of us are born into a world where overwhelmingly concentrated government power has ruled our entire lives, and we find it difficult if not impossible to imagine a world without it.
"Inalienable" as used in the founding documents meant "yours, as endowed by your mere existence as a human, without regard to whether anyone actually bothers to defend it."
Something of a misnomer, then, given the presence of the word 'able' in 'inalienable.' But there you go. But you're fundamentally correct; the rights we have essentially only boil down to the ones we're willing to defend, and if my observations of most Americans is correct, they wouldn't defend ANY ONE of their rights if someone shoved them in a pit for the rest of their lives. Oh, except the right to watch American Idol. And listen to their iPod. And eat McDonald's. Don't take away McDonald's.
In the name of all that is good, if I had mod points you'd get some.
This seems so self-evident to me. If you're to participate in your society at all, you've got to have your own sense of right and wrong.
To then spout off that "You don't understand the law" is just an excuse for someone NOT WANTING YOU TO. Cui bono, and all that, about what happens when the populace doesn't understand the laws under which it operates.
I don't think very many people would say the damages awarded are in any way 'fair.' Even if you take an overly punitive approach to life, and enjoy forcing people to suffer, that's STILL not going to lead you to those kinds of damages.
This whole case, and every one like it, are all about power, pure and simple. Power of government, power of corporations over the "little people" who don't have the limitless resources and connections to place themselves as equals in the eyes of the law, and so instead are trounced by it.
That's worthy of few thousand years of your livelihood, biatch. Mess with our major campaign contributors and it's gonna get ugly!" It is surreal. Absolutely absurd.
You really are an idiot. It's like the Freshman physics student walking up to Stephen Hawking and saying "I bet you don't know anything about black holes!" and then strutting around proudly at how smart they are, not realizing they just insulted one of the smartest men on the planet in the history of the world.
Seriously, do the artist get the money from these lawsuits, or does it go straight into an executives pocket?
Courtney Cox released a breakdown of this once - I can't seem to find it now. In the end, if they get anything, it's pennies. Not per song - pennies, period.
Often, they end up owing large sums for the "representation of your interests" performed by the legal action. And of course, it's paid out of your royalties before they write you the check, not giving you the option of whether you actually WANTED said representation.
It's why there have been several notable defections from major labels lately by well known artists. They're starting to wise up.
The station keeps logs of what is played and who has to get paid.
It's worse than that. In many cases, they don't keep said log - they are charged instead for the average of what other stations in their market play. So if some math jockey in a back room somewhere figures that stations played Justin Timberlake's latest travesty 100 times in a month, they charge you for the same, even if you never played the song once.
I shudder to think about independent radio stations and what they have to pay to keep the wolves at bay, stations that likely don't play music by ANY major label artists.
That was one of the things I thought about many times when I was doing c# coding back in high school, and I wrote nowhere near 10,000 lines of code, maybe 2000. I think I tried hard to have only a single reference to each object, inside a static array, belonging to that class, or a parent class.
Same here. I spend alot of mental effort keeping track of every object I use when doing.NET coding. No, I don't have to worry about freeing things like strings, but for anything I actually attach to, I immediately make sure to write the code to detach from it.
It seems obvious to me. Yet, I'm aware there are many coders who never learn this.
Thing is, I came from C/C++. I prefer.NET by far, because it allows me to more intuitively design my objects, but I've taken an attention to detail from the lower languages that I think someone simply jumping in is going to miss.
The next version of the.NET Framework, 3.0/3.5 uses Weak References by default for almost all event handlers you care about..NET 3.5 runs on the 2.0 CLR though, so it's simply finally using the weak references provided by the CLR.
Question: does C#/CLR have weak refs as a feature? Seems like event listeners ought to be registered as weak refs by default to prevent this sort of problem...
Yes it does, but they're almost never used. Event multicast delegates are always registered as strong references. This is why their software was bogging down:
For someone who'd written 10,000 lines of C# code, it seems they never picked up on the idea that merely removing an object from a list doesn't delete all references to it. I wasn't a paragraph into the article and I knew what their problem was, and it was their fault, not a C# memory leak.
Applying the logic that "because it supports it, it is likely to be there," means that a TC user would always be implicated for data hiding unless they had filled up their partition and could provide keys that showed this. Any "empty" space would be a potential hidden partition.
That amounts to proving innocence. I'd hope that any reasonably competent lawyer could get you out of that - because the "You're guilty unless you can prove otherwise" position would be disastrous for a civilization predicated on the rule of law.
At that point, it becomes a bunch of goons who are only as effective as how much information that can beat out of you.
That would only be the case if the Constitution defined privacy. As it stands, the Constitution doesn't even MENTION privacy.
Which means, since it is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government to intrude on the right to privacy, that it is a right retained by the people.
Oh, wait, you thought that your statement indicated the opposite, right?
You should remember that the Constitution enumerates the government's powers, not the people's rights. The Constitution does not grant rights - it simply points out a few of them that they specifically wanted to ensure were retained by the people. The rest not mentioned are automatically retained.
The right to privacy is precisely one of these - it was an idea considered so fundamental to society at the time the Constitution was written that it was considered an absurdity to include it in the document.
Turns out they probably should have left it in, huh?
Do you have trouble with mp3 streams (internet radio and the like)?
I can't get them to work for any reasonable length of time. I also see my connection randomly reset. It's incredibly annoying.
I used to notice it more at my old apartment. Comcast tech said the cable modem was bad, but even with replacements it happened frequently. I'm on a different node now and there's a significant difference. It still happens once in awhile, though.
Mostly I can't stand how slow it is. I shudder to think how many people I'm sharing the connection with.
1. People who will never steal content 2. People who will if they think it's worth it 3. People who always will.
You can tell when something is over-priced when group 2 chooses to steal rather than to buy. It means that the market's price is not in line with the market's perceived value.
I find Zucker's comments hilarious. He acts as though they have a right to make a profit. He's basically lamenting that we live in a capitalistic society where you actually have to *ZOMG* compete against other companies!
Slashdot Mirror
You're kidding, right? Just trolling?
Again.. you're just trolling, right? You can't be that naive. First of all, they had nothing to do with 'freedom.' Freedom is a buzzword that is essentially meaningless. They had to do with liberty, a more interesting and yet wholly different concept.
As for why slavery still happened, if it had not, the United States would never have been created. Read up on the subject, the compromises made in order to ensure the formation of the union are quite interesting.
Read my post again. I didn't say a thing about the current administration, because I'm well aware that some of those court rulings are decades old.
All I'm saying is, the ideal of an educated few who will consider decisions with wisdom and without coercion is an ideal that has been shown demonstrably false. Just because the court says it is so, doesn't make it right.
And the founders thought that life terms would leave the Supreme Court immune from political hackery... how wrong they were.
No, only where the US has jurisdiction. Like, you know, prisons on the island of Cuba. Or customs at airports.
Someone mod parent up, please.
The citizenry is a subset of the people. The word 'citizen' was left out of the Bill of Rights on purpose - the colonial British were fond of stripping citizenship in order to carry out all manner of injustice on people.
Not to mention the fact that the political philosophy that gave birth to our nation does not limit human rights to "citizens" of some hypothetical state, but applies it to all humans equally. It would have been hypocritical for our founders to then limit recognized human rights to citizens only.
Which, incidentally, is why I don't buy any of the government's arguments about why imprisoning people in Guantanamo is legal.
I think you're missing something. The US Constitution enumerates which powers the government has. Nowhere does it empower the government to infringe on those liberties, and the ONLY applicable mention is the 4th Amendment, which recognizes the rights of the people to be secure in their possessions (note it does not grant said right - it recognizes a right the people already have).
These days it's so easy to say "Those rights aren't protected!" but most people forget that the Constitution was intended to tell the government the powers it has, not what rights the people have.
Since the only applicable text in the document protects citizens, I should think we'd start from the assumption that the government has NO RIGHT to that information, that they should PROVE they need it, and NOT that people have to prove it should be protected.
Interestingly, not one point you made had any relation to freedoms - only to the circuses used to conceal the theft of those freedoms from the populace. You're right, a sufficiently entertained populace won't care about freedoms very much, and that's exactly the problem. Complacency.
Prosperity and freedom are not the same thing.
No, "Americans" don't. Small groups of Americans do, and VERY small groups at that, with perhaps the exception of the NRA, which has 4.3 million members. Talk to your average American, one not actively part of these groups, and they consider these groups to be troublemakers who are just stirring up trouble for no reason and they see no purpose to the disagreements and legal battles these groups get into.
Most of us are born into a world where overwhelmingly concentrated government power has ruled our entire lives, and we find it difficult if not impossible to imagine a world without it.
Maybe you SHOULD be offended. I'm American. It perfectly describes the vast majority of Americans I know.
Yes, Americans are good people. They're also wholly uninterested in their political livelihood.
"Inalienable" as used in the founding documents meant "yours, as endowed by your mere existence as a human, without regard to whether anyone actually bothers to defend it."
Something of a misnomer, then, given the presence of the word 'able' in 'inalienable.' But there you go. But you're fundamentally correct; the rights we have essentially only boil down to the ones we're willing to defend, and if my observations of most Americans is correct, they wouldn't defend ANY ONE of their rights if someone shoved them in a pit for the rest of their lives. Oh, except the right to watch American Idol. And listen to their iPod. And eat McDonald's. Don't take away McDonald's.
Yes. Doh.
In the name of all that is good, if I had mod points you'd get some.
This seems so self-evident to me. If you're to participate in your society at all, you've got to have your own sense of right and wrong.
To then spout off that "You don't understand the law" is just an excuse for someone NOT WANTING YOU TO. Cui bono, and all that, about what happens when the populace doesn't understand the laws under which it operates.
I don't think very many people would say the damages awarded are in any way 'fair.' Even if you take an overly punitive approach to life, and enjoy forcing people to suffer, that's STILL not going to lead you to those kinds of damages.
This whole case, and every one like it, are all about power, pure and simple. Power of government, power of corporations over the "little people" who don't have the limitless resources and connections to place themselves as equals in the eyes of the law, and so instead are trounced by it.
You have no idea who you're arguing with do you.
You really are an idiot. It's like the Freshman physics student walking up to Stephen Hawking and saying "I bet you don't know anything about black holes!" and then strutting around proudly at how smart they are, not realizing they just insulted one of the smartest men on the planet in the history of the world.
You're an idiot.
Courtney Cox released a breakdown of this once - I can't seem to find it now. In the end, if they get anything, it's pennies. Not per song - pennies, period.
Often, they end up owing large sums for the "representation of your interests" performed by the legal action. And of course, it's paid out of your royalties before they write you the check, not giving you the option of whether you actually WANTED said representation.
It's why there have been several notable defections from major labels lately by well known artists. They're starting to wise up.
It's worse than that. In many cases, they don't keep said log - they are charged instead for the average of what other stations in their market play. So if some math jockey in a back room somewhere figures that stations played Justin Timberlake's latest travesty 100 times in a month, they charge you for the same, even if you never played the song once.
I shudder to think about independent radio stations and what they have to pay to keep the wolves at bay, stations that likely don't play music by ANY major label artists.
Yes, if you're rich and well connected enough.
There's no law, and no justice, that enough money and power can't buy. So much for equality under the law.
And people wonder why I proclaim that granting corporations equal rights as individuals was probably the worst day in human history.
Same here. I spend alot of mental effort keeping track of every object I use when doing
It seems obvious to me. Yet, I'm aware there are many coders who never learn this.
Thing is, I came from C/C++. I prefer
I thought I'd add:
.NET Framework, 3.0/3.5 uses Weak References by default for almost all event handlers you care about. .NET 3.5 runs on the 2.0 CLR though, so it's simply finally using the weak references provided by the CLR.
The next version of the
Yes it does, but they're almost never used. Event multicast delegates are always registered as strong references. This is why their software was bogging down:
For someone who'd written 10,000 lines of C# code, it seems they never picked up on the idea that merely removing an object from a list doesn't delete all references to it. I wasn't a paragraph into the article and I knew what their problem was, and it was their fault, not a C# memory leak.
At that point, it becomes a bunch of goons who are only as effective as how much information that can beat out of you.
Which means, since it is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government to intrude on the right to privacy, that it is a right retained by the people.
Oh, wait, you thought that your statement indicated the opposite, right?
You should remember that the Constitution enumerates the government's powers, not the people's rights. The Constitution does not grant rights - it simply points out a few of them that they specifically wanted to ensure were retained by the people. The rest not mentioned are automatically retained.
The right to privacy is precisely one of these - it was an idea considered so fundamental to society at the time the Constitution was written that it was considered an absurdity to include it in the document.
Turns out they probably should have left it in, huh?
I can't get them to work for any reasonable length of time. I also see my connection randomly reset. It's incredibly annoying.
I used to notice it more at my old apartment. Comcast tech said the cable modem was bad, but even with replacements it happened frequently. I'm on a different node now and there's a significant difference. It still happens once in awhile, though.
Mostly I can't stand how slow it is. I shudder to think how many people I'm sharing the connection with.
There are three groups of people:
1. People who will never steal content
2. People who will if they think it's worth it
3. People who always will.
You can tell when something is over-priced when group 2 chooses to steal rather than to buy. It means that the market's price is not in line with the market's perceived value.
I find Zucker's comments hilarious. He acts as though they have a right to make a profit. He's basically lamenting that we live in a capitalistic society where you actually have to *ZOMG* compete against other companies!