I have a 14 inch Lenovo Thinkpad T60 which is 4:3 and has a full keyboard (unless you mean a separate keypad, but I don't know of any laptops that have one). Some of us just like 4:3 displays. Ultimately I prefer having a smaller laptop (13 or 14 inch screen) and having a 4:3 ratio at that size gives me more monitor to work with.

(1) I have a hard time understanding how you can even possibly think that passage says what you're saying it says. Douglas argues that when your speech causes a panic, it can be prosecuted. In your original post, you said the opposite of this. Ergo, you were wrong.

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater can be prosecuted if it causes a panic or or is deemed by the court to have been likely to do so. Claiming it's the consequences themselves which are prosecuted is blindingly stupid, since that means you'd prosecute the people who panic, but not the person who's yelling fire caused the panic which is both a) totally stupid and b) not anything like what Douglas says. Douglas' position is CLEARLY that some instances of speech are criminal

(2) Yelling something that could cause a panic and result in people dying is the very definition of saying something that would incite "imminent lawless action". According to Brandenburg v. Ohio you're not allowed to say something that you know or should reasonably believe will start a riot. How can you think that would allow you to start a riot in a theater by yelling "fire" when there is none? That's exactly the sort of case the court rules isn't permissible speech.

(1) Douglas says speech is "brigaded" with action in the case of yelling fire in a crowded theater. To use a term from philosophy, it's a speech act. But the point he's making is that such speech can be prosecuted because the actions it causes are "inseperable" from the speech itself. Your original post said that yelling fire in a crowded theater was a legitimate use of free speech. Douglas says the exact opposite. It really can't get much clearer than that. And I'm not defending what Japan is doing. I'm the staunchest supporter of free speech you'll find, but your reading of this is just not accurate. Believe it or not what the law actually says is important.

(2) Technically, only the decision itself is law. Even the majority opinion is just dictum. But that's irrelevant since YOU said: "The right to falsely "shout fire in a crowded theat[er]" principle is upheld in Brandenburg v. Ohio" and the only place this example is mentioned in the entire case is in Douglas' concurring opinion. So even if Douglas had said what you think he says (of course he doesn't say this) it wouldn't matter because, as you point out, concurring opinions aren't law. So by your own "reasoning" shouting fire in a crowded theater is not upheld in the case since concurring opinions don't carry legal force. And that's again ignoring the fact that his decision doesn't say what you say it does.

So let's review: You're wrong in your interpretation of Douglas' concurring opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio (the only place in that case where this example is broached) and, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong since concurring opinions aren't law.

This is just false. The only time this example is mentioned in that ruling is in Douglas' concurring opinion where he writes:

"The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.

The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt [p457] acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. [n3]"

What he says is that speech and action are inseparable in the case of of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, meaning that such an action is prosecutable.

So in short, you're totally wrong.

It's worse than that because it's not even true. There are, quite literally, an infinite number of valid English sentences because you nest phrases like "The man who had the wife who had the son who had the cousin who had the...." and so on, ad infinitum. At no point does this stop being a valid, grammatical English sentence. Of course the utterence itself is necessarily finite because, eg. the heat of the death of the universe will prevent it from being produced, or we'll die of old age, but this is a physical limitation, not a linguistic one.

"But then, the silence was broken. Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, took his turn at the microphone. "The situation in which we are living is extremely exacting, and we are asked to be absolutely truthful and credible," he said. The last couple of months have been very difficult, he went on, with so many questions being raised about things that happened long ago. But he said, "This is the time for truth, transparency and credibility. Secrecy and discretion are not values that are in fashion at the moment. We must be in a condition of having nothing to hide." The crowd applauded."

Oh, well then, that makes it perfectly OK and not all ridiculous and totally and completely bullshit

It turns out only SOME of the things the Pope says are the infallible word of God.

And how do we know the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra? Because God said so? No? Because some people made it up 140 years ago? Yeah. Well I now dictate that I'm infallible when speaking "en slashdotia". Beware.

"The Internet is making me increasingly irrelevant and, to boot, is serving as a means of propagating news about the criminal misconduct rampant in the archaic and faintly ridiculous institution I command. So it must be evil, since I, and what I stand for, is all that is good. Anyone publishing information that serves to discredit me or my organization is, by definition wicked, even if what they say is true. Pay attention to me!" I think that's what he means.

Fun fact: Socrates was able to drink huge amounts of alcohol without becoming inebriated, or so the story goes.

You're teaching your computer to read "in the way humans do"? You managed to code a Language Acquisition module into your program, one that matches how children learn language? Really? Learning language is not done by "training" or else any old human could pick up language. But we know that after a certain critical period it becomes functionally impossible for a human being to learn language. Ergo language acquisition is not simply induction, but rather some mental process we don't have a basic understanding of yet. If you've managed to figure out how children manage to learn language and you've implemented that in a computer than I'm writing this message to one of the eminent geniuses of this century. Of course, I don't think this is true.