Awesome! I love when somebody brings in the Bill of Rights to support their lame argument! Because almost everybody is an idiot when it comes to constitutional law. You, sir, do not disappoint either!

The idiots fail in two ways: A) That haven't actually read it themselves, or B) they cherry pick it or interpret in such a way that it comforts them instead of using a judicial eye.

The wording of the fourth amendment includes: "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Please carefully note the inclusion of the word "unreasonable". Unlike the 2nd amendment which is absolute, the fourth amendment is conditional.

The judicial system has already decided that an arrest provides the probable cause necessary to deem search and seizure of the suspect's property REASONABLE and therefore permissible. Good job. you sunk your own argument.

So, yes, the police can take away the suspect's cell phone. I still contend that isn't a punishment; no more than taking away the suspect's watch is.

Are you ready for this bad news... Life is tough. Everything unpleasant can be described as a "punishment" using your logic. So, again, cry all you want for your blanky; you don't have a right to it as you imply.

P.S. Santa doesn't exist either.

Noteworthy in that it exemplifies a very real problem with DRM. They did pay for the licenses but the supplier of the license basically withheld the license and therefore the customer got screwed. This has come up many times as a theoretical question: What do you do when the validator of the license no longer exists, changes their rules or is unwilling to validate your license (or in this case incapable of) ?

You're screwed. That's the answer.

What people have to understand is what "Digital Rights Management" actually means. When we hear the word "right" we always think about "our rights" not the other party's rights (unless they belong to the same peer group.) So for instance, if I talk about providing "right to free speech" you are happy because you assume it includes you as a recipent of that right. We are biased to assume that rights are universal. (inalienable, etc.) That we all share the same rights. That an increased number, strength or quality of rights is better.Basically we will tend to support any right because we are subconciously programmed to believe it benefits us.

The proponents of DRM are specifically using this psychology against us. They market their product with the term "rights" in order to make the intended audience/mark comfortable with their sales pitch/con game. Their "rights" yield to you NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. What it does do is guarantee specifics rights for them which you cannot circumvent or otherwise deny or share in. What they ARE selling to you is "Digital *Restriction* management". In otherwords, you are agreeing to allow them to restrict what you can do with the product that you buy. And there is nothing that you can do to improve your position in the future should they change their mind or cease to exist. This is true whether or not legal issues change as well. For instance, let's say that you were convicted and jail for alcohol sales during prohibition. The law changes and it is no longer a crime. However you don't get let out of jail because your key/license was crafted without that right. Basically if things change in your favor the license does not automatically change for you.

The United States has a Bill of Rights and the citizens generally hold this to be a significant factor in the quality and justice of the United States. Imagine how low we would think of a country who's government was based on a "Bill of Restrictions". A description of limited abilities that the government allows, arbitrarily or to the benefit of its politicians/dictators. Well that is *exactly* the relationship of DRM. It is truly Digital Restriction Management.

Because you hold a vision of what your rights are and what a punishment is that is in-congruent with that of the justice system. (and, frankly, the justice system is right.) Nobody has a right to a phone, or a laptop, or a sandwich, etc. Taking away a phone in such situations is, at worst, an inconvenience; not a punishment.

basically... quit crying about your blanky being taken away.

Umm... None of the others developed plant-life. Earth was all CO2 as well, until it developed plant-life. Having Photosynthesis metabolize CO2 into O2 over many millions of years yields our O2 rich atmosphere.

And before the next idiot replies with "Why did plant-life only appear on earth? That MUST be aliens/comets/magic/voo-doo!"... The atmospheres of the other planets is rather extremely harsh towards plants, to hot, to cold. too acidic, etc.

Christ, What are they teaching you people in school these days? This is all basic fourth grader material.

How the HELL did this article get filed under "science".

Venus has a significant atmosphere. Saturn has an atmosphere. Neptune... atmosphere. Jupiter... ALL atmosphere. Hey, look at that! All the planets larger than Mars have a significantly thick atmosphere.

Maybe it's as simple as their gravity is sufficient to trap gasses.

Please refile this article under "Intellectually Bankrupt" instead.

duh... That's a pretty good assumption. If there wasn't a disagreement then there really isn't anything to investigate is there?

I *WANT* everybody to be skeptical and question the result. Assume that there was some bias and look for it. Point out the assumptions and the weaknesses. Figure out what the non-scientific agendas are. All of us should be doing that before we react to "data".

It's the lack of this kind of critical thinking (both from the lay-person and from the scientists themselves) that has gotten us into these messes in the first place.

Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.

Well, you all voted for change...

Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.

When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.

Conventional? Do we consider keeping 150 servers up to serve pr0n to the masses a "conventional" job??

Just wondering where I should count that one.

Oh yes.. Blame the Governor (and with a thinly veiled naming insult to boot).

Look, the governor does not propose legislation. It is the legislators that do. All 120 of them trying to finagle the system the get the most money for their district and their pockets.

And, yes... to get re-elected in their district they will steal the teevees from, and screw, all the other districts in any way they can.

So for the love of all that is good... stop looking to the governor to solve our problems. Start kicking out the bozos in legislation who are creating the problems in the first place.

Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense. [cents?]

The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it. California's economy is in serious trouble. (Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left. I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.)

But what does this have to do with television regulation? I'm renovating a house. I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California. But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed. What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500% of what it should. You must have high efficacy lighting. This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb. You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures. So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.

This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights. The same is going to be true for the televisions. They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology. People will balk at buying them. Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can. More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families). Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).

And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.

"Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs." Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first. It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology. Remember tube TVs?

Because there is no other store to sell your product in.

Wal-mart is not analogous to the Apple app store. (and thus your argument fails). Wal-mart has Target, Amazon, Costco, K-Mart, Bed Bath and Beyond and a host of other competitors that a product company could contract with to sell its products and a consumer could choose to purchase products for their household from.

There is no other app-store that an iPhone user can select to purchase their apps from. There is no competition that product companys can contract with to deliver their product to consumers. The app-store is essentially a monopoly and thus is regulated by anti-trust legislation.

There is no such "shadow". Get your facts straight. It didn't blow up. it didn't expose any humans to radioactivity. Anybody on a transcontinental flight this evening will receive a higher dose of ionizing radioactivity than anybody received from Three Mile Island. The design fault that led to its failure has been identified and fixed in all US plants for a very long time. There is NO legitimate comparison between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; where humans specifically disabled and overroad several safety systems on purpose despite warnings.

Literally, Ted Kennedy is personally responsible for killing more people than the entire history of the United States Nuclear Power program, including Three Mile Island.

See the problem is with "just imagine". As in "not real", "imaginary".

That is the fundamental problem with this sort of feel-good crap. It ignores the very real details and constraints of a situation and as such offers absolutely nothing but warm fuzzies instead of any progress or improvement.

You are an ignorant moron. One person not willing to crush another's skull for his benefit does not stop all the violence in the world. You provide no evidence what so ever.

Why don't you crawl out of your cave into the light and meet some people who would happily cave your skull in if it benefited them.

I'll give examples from two types of societal memberships: prisoners and dictators. Yes, if released many hard-core prisoners would resort to violence to increase their status or wealth. If you truly believe differently then I'm sure you won't mind providing them a leg up by having them stay with you when we release these kind, wrongfully imprisoned souls.

Dictators? Don't get me started. The trees are dying in North Korea. Not because of blight or drought; but because the people are eating all the bark for food because their dictator runs one of the most repressive regimes, ever. Darfur? Myanmar? Want to go back in history for more examples? How far back do you want to go? I'm sure Hypatia would like to talk to you about the kindness of people who hold different beliefs.

Get a clue. There is always somebody willing to cave in another person's skull for gain/revenge/insanity.