I really think you need to have a source available for that statement. In my experience it is just the opposite. Union workers are, in general, less productive, less attentive, and less trust worthy than non union labor. Deliberate destruction of equipment, shoddy workmanship, and an attitude that they know more or better than the owners of the company, or anyone else for that matter. The Auto industry is a prime example of unions run amok. No, unions are a bad idea anywhere attention to detail, specialized skills or when life and death decisions are made.

You guys are so funny it is ridicules. This FCC is run by liberals for liberals. This is Obama's FCC. He is not interested in anything but control. If you think for a minute that people like Franken give a rip about an open free internet, you are absolutely crazy. I tell you what, I would much rather have Corporations control the internet by providing ISP services that have any government at any level involved. But your hero from Wikileak has messed with the worlds Governments and believe it or not he is not supported by the masses. If and I say if cause I hope cooler heads will prevail, the governments of the world take control of the internet, you will have him and all his supporters that acted like a lawless mob to blame. Get use to it. He called the tune, the piper will be paid.

this is ammo for those that wish to control the Internet. This can not end well.

It is inevitable that CGI/AI advancements eventually lead to the creation of digital actors/stars. As we have seen overt the last 20 years, the capabilities of digital creation/recreation of completely digital characters that are very close to real in all aspects except physical are coming. The technology is still not quite there, but it will get there. I foresee a time when they can take stars from Film, TV, and Video archives, and recreate them using AI to be so close to the originals that most people would not be able to tell. Need John Wayne? There will be an AI of him, Clark Gable? Betty Davis? Johnny Carson? The list of the famous is all but endless. I don't like it, but the public has no say in this. It is between who owns the rights for a likeness and those that wish to use it. The day will come then every character, every animal, every object in a video will be completely realistic, completely believable, and completely digital. And many will not be able to tell the difference. This has implications far beyond entertainment. Unlike photo-shopped pictures, these will be originals. You will be able to place anyone from history in any situation desired. Talk about rewriting History or spinning it,

Try reading the Federalist papers, the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Monroe, Madison. Their intentions are clear. As for it changing, it does, it is called the amendment process. Actually the Courts, deliberately misapplied the reconstruction amendments to make "separate but equal" constitutional. It took decades to change that with Brown V. Board of Education. The initial decision was deliberately bastardizing the words, meaning, and intent of the writers. That was wrong. As you state, there have been many changes to the constitution, but all changes MUST come through the amendment process. Courts applying "their interpretation" of it gave us decades of discrimination. I leave you with this, a very famous quote; " If it(the constitution)can mean anything, then it means nothing"

An those Many, Many Courts are in fact WRONG. The founding fathers of this country all supported the use of public moneys in religious functions that benefited the public. The establishment clause, as you put it is a creation of the courts, not of the constitution. You your self quoted the 1899 decision by a Court, not basing any of it on the words of the constitution. Show me the word "separation" in the constitution, it is not there, therefor it in not valid to use in a discussion of the meaning of the constitution. As for the Judiciary understanding what the founding fathers meant, that may have been true 150 years ago, but it is not true now. The words of the constitution mean something, when they were written, how they were used. Hence the recent 2nd amendment case.. "the right of the people... shall not be infringed." Judges have been deliberately misapplying that amendment to allow the unconstitutional restriction of ownership of arms. There decision were based on politics not on the words of the constitution, the times in which it was written, the usages of the language, and the intent of the writers of the constitution. Read the Federalist papers, the Writings of Adams, Madison, Monroe, you will find out the courts have bastardized the meaning of the constitution since at least the creation of the reconstruction amendments. Example, "separate but equal" is not in the constitution but was decided by the Courts and being Constitutional. That was wrong, the decision was made by a court more worried about politics in the south than the words and the meaning of the amendment. If separate but equal is unconstitutional because it is not in the constitution, then the concept of separation of church and state is not valid as it is not in the constitution. You, unfortunately, have been brainwashed and really do need to study the constitution, its writing, its history. Court decision do not follow the constitutions meaning all the time.

that sir is plain BS. Oh, and the people of the United States, through the legislature are the final arbitrators of the meaning of the US Constitution.

not true. Based on the use of the english language, the phrasing and construction of the writing at the time of the writing and adoption, the original intent, as backed up writings of those people that actually wrote it and I quote "Ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America", was to prevent government at any level from creating an "official government religion". This was in direct response to the "official religions" of the European Monarchs. the decision of "separation of church and state" as it is viewed in popular culture was set in place by the Warren and Burger courts. That was in the 1960's. Like Roe V Wade, they based their decisions not on Constitutional fact. This was based on their personal beliefs, their political beliefs, and their desire to "change for the better" the United States. It is also the basis for Roe V Wade and several other questionable decisions. As for allocating money for the theme park requiring legislation, you are so very wrong. The legislation was used to create the fund, to determine the purpose, and to set the basis for qualification. Granting money from that fund to religious groups along with non religious groups regardless of their faith does not violate any part of the Constitution. Any reading of the Constitution or the application of it that does not take into account this is pure wrong. If the fund was set up specifically for a religious based theme park you would have a better argument. Just as the use of public property for religious displays does not violate the any part of the constitution. Your bias, no bigotry toward people of faith shows that you my be technologically savvy, but you are no better than those that would look down on us who believe that science, true science, has the answers.

it amazes me how lacking of any sort of tolerance you have. You are basically showing that you are bigots, If you replaced the word creationist with black, Indian, women, gays, or any other of the in favor "victim" groups, you would be hounded out of here and probably banned. But for some reason you seem to think it is perfectly OK to scoff at, ridicule, verbally abuse, cast innuendo, and slander and entire group of people just because you do not believe as they do. I do not believe in any religion, but I do not behave as you do toward. They have the right to carry on with their lives and you do with yours. You do not like them, fine, but being an obnoxious bigot is only showing your lack of tolerance. Something I think you are trying to say they are. For technology savvy people, you are not any better or worse in your beliefs than they are. As a point, the so called Science, hard evidence, and rational thought we are so proud of has brought us 2 decades of the myth of human caused global climate change. This myth is just as much a myth as the Creation myth. Remember at one time Creation was backed by science, hard evidence and rational thought as well. Much of the early scientific discoveries of the Renaissance were made by clergy to show the perfection of the creation version of the universe. Our Science, hard evidence, and rational thought may be considered "belief in barbaric myths" in 400 years. Think about it the next time you want be condescending toward people that believe different from us.

Interestingly enough I have no issue with this happening. They have the right to attempt to create this theme park. Why would the fact it is based on the creation myth of the Judo-christian religion be of any significance? Last I read the Constitution of the United States, the 1st amendment states "Freedom of Religion" not "Freedom FROM Religion". There is a modern Myth that there is a separation of church and state in the constitution. It does not exist, If you think it does, please show me the word "separate" in the first amendment. Read the constitution from the point of view of how the people that wrote it used the language, not how you interpret it. Languages change, work meanings change, the intent of the founders and writers does not. That being said I want you to understand that I am not a religious person, i do not subscribe to any form of religion. All religion is a man made creation to explain where the world comes from and how it works. I like to call myself a Duncar. That is a really short for I Don't care. I don't think the government should care one way or the other. If they want to create a theme park based on Judo-Christian myth, go ahead. If they want to apply for money from development funds, please go right ahead. why should anyone care. It does not matter to me at all. It does not matter to them that i will not be visiting it, or that you who so easily scoff at religion will not be visiting it. They are making it for people that will go there. I have never visited any Disney theme park, I just do not care to. So should Disney not be allowed to build or apply for funds? No. my beliefs or lack there of is not reliant, neither is yours. Are they proposing violence? how about anarchy? overthrow of the Government? Last I looked it was OK to believe in anything you wanted to as long as it was not detrimental to others or a violation of the law.

he is playing with the big boys now. that site will be shut down within a week. Too bad he is too gutless to publicly stand up for what he is doing. No like most cowards he hides. In reality I can understand it, his chances of surviving to the first of the year is 1 in 5. he has made a lot of people from a lot of countries mad.

Nah, This guy is just next in line for the job. Leave it to Obama-nation to come up with another "position". More of my tax money for another stupid program run by stupid people for the benefit of the Federal Employees and the Obama ra ra section of the major media. And worst of all, some of you actually thing it is a good idea. Obviously you have head buried someplace dark, smelly and damp for the last 2 years. Get a grip...

Actually, anyone busting into your account, If they did the same thing would be liable for exactly the same adjudication. Palin did not have a big say in if this person was prosecuted. That is up to the DA. It is true however that they are much more likely to go after high profile occurances of such crimes. As a 30+ year IS professional, I would like to see a lot more of these types of criminals punished. I am not saying put them in jail, no I like the idea of monetary restitution, community service, and a very very public apology. At least for this level of crime.

Really!! I find it hard to believe that an alien race would travel many light years to meet a UN Bureaucrat that has little to no power or importance in the actual scheme of things. They would be better off talking to the local Barbershop owner. I am sure that they would scope out the place before making contact. Hopefully who every meets them will be level headed, open minded, and not need a change of shorts in the first 5 seconds. At this point in time there is not a head of state in the world I would want them to meet. Actually I think I would have them meet Queen Elizabeth II. Not that she has any power, or she represents a world power, but she is, in my humble opinion, the classiest Lady in the world. If anyone could make a great impression it is her. she is tough and dignified. She knows the way the world works, and has the respect of a huge percentage of the world's population, Of course this assumes they come in peace and want to be our friends.

It totally amazes me, the almost total lack of concern for those that perished in this crash. With few exceptions the consensus is that Windows is to blame or he lack of a redundant system is to blame, or the airline is to blame, or the aircraft, or the government, or anyone or anything other than the creators of this Trojan. IF and I say if cause there is no direct proof or actual allegations in the article, this trojan had ever 1/10 of 1 percent of the blame then you all should be calling for the head of whoever wrote this damn bug. It seems to me that as a group, the people here on slashdot are more concerned about a minor flaw in a the latest release of a game then they are about nasty bits of vicious code that may have, even in a small way, contributed to the death of 154 people. Your priorities sadden this old man.