So how many people are there with your name in China? ;-)

Actually, my wife also has a name that's unique in the US, and probably the world. But more fun is that right now it gets over a million hits on google. This is in part because her name is an English sentence. But the top hits are because her name was also a widespread news headline in 1822 in most of the English-speaking world. That should be enough of a clue to figure it out.

There are lots of fun obscure facts about names.

This is a private business. They can do what they like.

I too hope there is no such law, I support her right to say it on every street corner. Just like I support youtubes right to not have to carry this filth.

True...and I usually argue that point too...but I don't see someone voicing this opinion as 'filth'...and not sure why youtube would ban it....its their choice, but I don't think they should be so quick to silences point of views that might be slightly controversial.....

And in this case, the automatic response of many corporations will be to set up a new job position in charge of creating ids for all such voting, and learning how to maximize the corporation's contribution to the voting process.

I expect that this has already happened in many corporations ...

There have been numerous reports from many countries about duplicate government ID numbers due to schemes like this. There was a recent story about a similar case in Canada, with two people born the same day in the same hospital that were given identical names.

Yes, the probabilities are low, but they aren't zero. If the money has any legal or financial impact, duplicates inevitably lead to lawsuits, lost time, etc, etc.

If the ID number is important, you need to guarantee that two people don't get assigned the same number. If you let this happen, you might be surprised at how quickly it happens -- and it's your fault.

I wonder if it'd be useful to collect a list of as many such ID collisions as we can find. It could serve as a warning to anyone thinking of making the same mistake in yet another "unique ID" scheme. I did a bit of googling, but didn't find any such list anywhere.

Those Founding Fathers would be ashamed to see intelligent officials (like Supreme Court Justices) that refuse to use their own capable minds to decide if something needs a fresh interpretation for a specific time and place.

No, I don't think they would....they would wonder why, if things needed changing per the changing times...that the people and their representatives hadn't moved in the fashion proscribed by the Founding Fathers...and amended the Constitution as needed?

It isn't up the the SCOTUS to change the Constitution...it is to be changed by the Amendment system, and then...SCOTUS will rule future cases based on that version of the amended constitution.

As the article relates, if it were up to Scalia, he would interpret laws based on the state of the country in 1789, not as things exist now. Which is what this country needs, someone who thinks things should be frozen in time, never changing and kept as they were.

Close...but no cigar.

It should be interpreted as it is currently written.

If you want to have things 'change with the times', there is a method for that...amendments!

That is the proper method by which you keep the constitution from being frozen in time, but the Justices ARE supposed to interpret it as currently written.

Indeed. A few years ago, I ran across a US Census Bureau web page that gave the number of people with specific first or last names, and an estimate (likely from multiplying the fractions) of the number of people in the US with a given first+last name. It said that there are about 1800 people in the US with the same name as me, and my family name isn't even Smith or Jones or any of the other top 100.

Through the years, I've seen a number of bibliographies that list things that I've written, intermixed with things written by various of those others with my name. So far, I haven't complained, since this makes us all look better than we really are. ;-)

Still, it could be useful if we had a reasonable way to separate out such things and give individuals the proper acknowledgement for their contributions to our knowledge. But I'd be surprised if we could actually do this job right, within the lifetimes of people now living.

Among those of us familiar with the old music of the British Isles, one ongoing frustration is the misattribution of music written by Niel Gow or Neil Gow. One of those was the grandfather of the other; do you know which was which? The intermediate in the male line was Nathaniel Gow, who also wrote a lot of good tunes, and collectors also confuse him with his father and his son despite the different name. Somehow, I suspect that this Unique ID system won't be extended to them, any more than I expect it to be implemented accurately for living authors.

(And none of this will stop current publishers from claiming copyright for their works. ;-)

Well to be fair calling someone a whore or asshole isn't illegal but "hate speech" is.

Thankfully, so far...there is no such thing as a law banning "hate speech".....and there should never be one.

Where do you define hate speech? At some point...it can completely erode free speech in general.

Obviously if you have something called "hate speech" that is being limited you have taken away some rights to share opinions.

Maybe in a country outside the US....I'd dare say even 'hate speech' (whatever the hell that is) is protected speech.....

So because Hate speech is in her holy book youtube should keep it up?

Saying you believe that some actions or lifestyles are wrong...is not hate speach. Since when did expressing opinions or beliefs become hate speech.

Geez, I hope there's not an actual hate speech law on the books that covers something like this....sure would take a lot of the 'fun' out of the freedom of speech we used to enjoy here in the US.